Rural water project planning and evaluation in Ghana: a new methodological perspective

While overall growth trends in community development are positive, governments are increasingly developing policies that seek to maximise the economic, environmental, and social benefits that local initiatives can bring (Ngaruiya et al., 2015; Mtika & Kistler, 2017; Mangai & De Vries, 2018). In addition, current efforts have been geared towards reducing the pressures that arise when community development and empowerment initiatives are unplanned and unmanaged (Basson et al., 2018; Erdiaw-Kwasie & Acheampong, 2018). Although community development is viewed as a self-generating process aimed at important changes in social structures and conditions of life, as well as the involvement in decisions that affect their lives, challenges at the project level are evident (Mvulirwenande et al., 2019; Steimanis et al., 2020). Over the last decade, widespread shifts have occurred in how community-based development projects and programs are designed, implemented, and managed (Ngaruiya et al., 2015; Mangai & De Vries, 2018; Zikargae et al., 2022). There are multiple reasons why this shift has occurred, one of which is a long-standing recognition that the complex internal and external challenges that impact the project environment necessitate new approaches and coalitions of actors from a wide variety of knowledge and action domains (Muhammad, 2016). In fact, it is only in recent years that research in grassroots project planning and evaluation has markedly increased (Loucks & Van Beek, 2017).

However, despite the interest that project planning and evaluation aspects of community development has generated, significant challenges remain. For one, existing discourses encourage community development institutions and practitioners to aspire to be effective in their project planning and evaluation, yet there is not a sufficiently explicit or detailed description of what they should be aiming for, nor is there a well-developed body of literature that can clearly articulate underlying factors that impact the effectiveness of participatory project planning and evaluation (Raymond et al., 2017; Baddianaah & Baaweh, 2021). Indeed, much of the current interest in community development initiatives centres on the promotion of local interventions and participation with little consideration of matters associated with the planning and evaluation of such community-based projects that are seen in practice. As a result, the issues surrounding community-based project planning and assessment remain clouded for many development actors and institutions (Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2014; Sligo et al., 2017; Hasan et al., 2022).

Due to the absence of a commonly agreed approach to planning and implementing community-based projects, understanding an evaluative framework for project outcomes to stakeholders remains a challenge. While development actors and institutions have generally recognised community development as critical (Frimpong et al., 2021), the project planning and evaluation aspects are much more problematic to date. To many, community development remains ‘a vague and intangible term’ with ‘unclear components and boundaries’ (Ledwith, 2020). Thus, although the debate about community development has continued to grow, we are still far from reaching a consensus on its project planning and evaluation elements. To better understand the environmental impact and value of community development projects, a new methodological perspective has to be developed, one that synthesises new knowledge on the internal and external factors at the project level is required that impact project planning.

As part of the intent to contribute to a robust and complete evaluative framework, the instrument proposed here is tested with a rural community water project in Ghana – Piase Community Water Project (PCWP). Several serious limitations to the existing studies offer useful empirical and theoretical insights into evaluating community water projects. As a starting point, no studies have examined rural community water projects using a more comprehensive methodology that quantifies embedded contextual factors in the evaluation process. In policy terms, they fail to operationalise and quantify contextual factors. In addition, most studies are conducted at the national level. It is important to note that in cases where studies have evaluated subnational water projects, they primarily focus on urban settings or lack critical context analysis. In most studies, the contextual scope of water project evaluation is conceptualised traditionally and narrowly and is confined in scope, so it is challenging for them to develop a more comprehensive framework for evaluating and analysing rural water projects and policies. In this study, we propose and apply an advanced SWOT matrix for assessing community water projects in a rural region of Ghana for the first time. This methodological approach allows weight to be assigned to contextual factors, which leads to rigorous conclusions. Moreover, using the advanced SWOT matrix will also provide a comprehensive set of policy recommendations for improving water project evaluation, especially in rural areas.

This article shares learnings from the PCWP in Ghana as it strived to overcome diverse forms of implementation challenges. Within the PCWP, research is conducted in the Piase community to help gather firsthand data to help understand the diverse array of thematic factors that can influence the implementation cycle of the project. The PIASE project is noted in the region for its complex implementation and actors’ domain, which somehow helps to bring together results that promote an understanding of the internal and external environment of the project. It is hoped that adopting an advanced SWOT matrix tool to evaluate the PIASE project offers relevant insights and is applicable to other community projects and contexts.

The article begins by contextualising the project in terms of its background and the adopted methodology and then outlines the experiences and learning within the PIASE project. Here, the weaknesses and strengths that emerged from the design and implementation of the PIASE project are then shared before concluding with key policy and empirical implications to enhance outcomes of other community-based development projects, particularly water-related ones, which are usually contested and complex.

Planning and evaluation are distinct but complementary concepts that consist of a series of steps to achieve a goal and a set of objectives. While project planning involves the formulation of goals, identifying and assigning resources and responsibilities, evaluation entails an ongoing assessment of each stage of a project cycle to ensure efficiency in resources and achievement of goals (Pellerin & Perrier, 2019; Meredith et al., 2020; Taghipour et al., 2020). Two main project planning and evaluation approaches have been identified in the literature: bottom-up and top-down. Each approach has its context-specific pros and cons, particularly in practice. For instance, even though the top-down approach is sector-based and appropriate for strategic responses to issues, the priorities of project beneficiaries are sometimes ignored (Butler et al., 2017; Alam et al., 2018). On the contrary, the bottom-up approach puts beneficiaries at the centre of the project and empowers them to actively participate in planning and evaluation processes (Fraser et al., 2006). In recent times, there has been a more contemporary and conventional approach that integrates both the bottom-up and top-down in a single project (Bhave et al., 2014; Erdiaw-Kwasie & Alam, 2016; Semeraro et al., 2020).

The bottom-up approach forms the basis of the community-driven development (CDD) model for assessing projects. CDD provides control of decisions and resources to community groups and treats the disadvantaged as assets and partners in the development process. It encourages building and strengthening community institutions, facilitating access to information and promoting an enabling environment through policies and reforms (Van der Windt, 2020; Zurstrassen, 2020). Dongier et al. (2003) indicate that CDD encompasses any or all of the following: (i) strengthening and providing financial support to accountable and inclusive community groups, (ii) enabling community access to information through a variety of media and information technology, and (iii) ensuring functional links between community groups and formal institutions through appropriate policy and institutional reforms. Both empirical and theoretical evidence shows that providing poor people with the opportunity to drive development programs and initiatives has a greater potential to make poverty reduction efforts more responsive and sustainable (Walters, 2018; White et al., 2018). The involvement of communities in local development decisions has proven to be an inherent right and a platform that often leads to judicious use of scarce resources. Narayan (2000), for example, concluded that CDD empowers the poor to negotiate with government and non-government organisations as well as an avenue to shape their destinies and curtail corruption. Other important benefits of CDD include (i) enhancing sustainability; (ii) improving efficiency and effectiveness; (ii) allowing poverty reduction efforts to be taken to scale; (iv) making development more inclusive; (v) empowering poor people, building social capital, and strengthening governance; and (vi) complementing market and public sector activities (Dongier et al., 2003; Baird et al., 2009; Binswanger-Mkhize et al., 2010). Wong (2012), in a study, posited that the enormous benefits of the CDD model to the economic, social, and political structures of communities across the globe have made it a key operational strategy for many donor agencies, including governments and international funding organisations. For instance, over the past two decades, 5–10% of the World Bank lending portfolios have been premised on the CDD model (Wong, 2012).

The planning and evaluation phase of community-based projects is touted as the most critical. For example, an evaluation of numerous community-based projects in the Philippines by Labonne & Chase (2008) revealed that it is a substitute for associational activities, which negatively impacts group membership, collective actions, and local-level investments in other projects. Similarly, Fearon et al. (2009) evaluated a reconstruction project in Liberia and found that community spirit promotes positive impacts on collective action and social cohesion.

In the context of Ghana, the CDD model is not a new concept. The concept gained prominence during the colonial period. During this era, community groups mobilised local resources to solve local development challenges, including the construction and renovation of infrastructure (Bonye et al., 2013). Since then, the CDD model has expanded to include government and donor agency support. Ghana has benefited enormously from many CDD-funded projects, which are largely financed by the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and other regionally propelled initiative proponents because of its high-functioning local government systems (World Bank, 2010). However, despite the numerous types of research focused on CDD-based projects across many developing countries, including Ghana, little attention has been paid to the approach adopted in evaluating these projects (Nwanaji-Enwerem et al., 2022). Casey et al. (2011) indicate that although community-driven projects have proven to be beneficial in most contexts, the evaluation of such projects still lags behind their implementation rate scaling up. The study, therefore, recommends a more advanced methodological perspective to critically evaluate and understand community-driven projects to ensure that lessons learnt can be shared to support policy and practical interventions. In light of such gaps, our paper adopts an advanced SWOT matrix tool to evaluate and share learnings from the PCWP in the Bosomtwe District Area in Ghana.

Prior to PCWP, the project catchment communities faced a myriad of development challenges, of which high mortality from cholera and diarrhea was recorded as paramount. The widespread of these waterborne diseases in the community was attributed to the unavailability of potable drinking water. In addition, the Piase project catchment communities’ residents usually covered between 6 and 8 miles on foot to fetch water from the main river (Piase River) – which serves as the key source of drinking water for the populace. Members also depended on the Piase River for other domestic purposes such as cooking, washing, and drinking. Apart from the health implications of relying on the river as the main water source, the longer distance travelled to access water has many negative socio-economic impacts, including children's performance at school, domestic chores at home, and to some extent economic effects on farms. Thus, an urgent need for a more reliable water project in the region led to the initiation and implementation of the PCWP.

The PCWP was executed in phases, and each phase was characterised by activities that led to its completion. According to project sources, prior to the commencement of the project, there were a few superficial contacts with the opinion leaders of the community weeks before project commencement. After initial contacts and consultations were completed, the project team coordinated subsequent activities relevant to the project's planning, implementation, and evaluation phases. For example, to ensure that all activities aligned with set targets, and the project team usually monitored recorded progress.

Concerning project maintenance, a committee was established during the commissioning of the PCWP. The committee is an autonomous local body comprised of volunteer members and mainly includes the local government representative (assemblyman), the Water and Sanitation Committee chairman, one representative from the traditional authority, two representatives from among the Market women, and a co-opted member from the Bosomtwe District Assembly. The committee was tasked with maintaining and ensuring the efficient, judicious, and safe utilisation of the resources for the water project. Other committee responsibilities included penalising defaulters of relevant rules and regulations, collecting necessary fees, and addressing new water installation and extension requests.

The study employed the exploratory sequential mixed method design. Its initial phase commenced with an interview and focus group discussion (FGD) to elicit the level and extent of residents’ involvement in the decision making of the PCWP. Key variables considered during the interview and FGD included: the level and extent of local residents’ participation in decision making through the project cycle. Next, a semi-structured interview was used to collect data from 60 sampled community members and 1 development planning officer in the Bosumtwi District of the Ashanti Region. The interview guide was categorised into the following headings: participation of the citizenry, mechanisms for citizens’ participation, obstacles to effective citizens’ participation, and benefits of effective citizens’ participation in decision-making on PCWP. The interviews were followed up with two FGDs of some key informants purposively selected based on the roles they played during the planning and implementation of the project.

The two FGDs were held during the weekend because participants voluntarily opted for their availability on those days. Each group for the FGD was made up of six participants. The FGD sessions helped addressed issues on the approaches adopted for the involvement of the citizens and the challenges that hindered their participation in decision-making during the design, planning, and implementation of PCWP. In addition, discussions of the mechanisms and processes of residents’ participation in the stages of PCWP. Given the workload in the field, the data collection exercise was shared among the researchers. While half of the research team conducted the interview, the remaining half coordinated the FGD sessions.

The issues and topics raised in the focus group sessions and the interviews were then analysed and grouped under the SWOT variables. These generated findings were presented as a Likert scale to the interview respondents. The respondents were asked to rate each grouped variable based on whether the factor represented a major weakness (rating = 1), a minor weakness (rating = 2), a minor strength (rating = 3), or a major strength (rating = 4). The same procedure was followed for the opportunity and threat constructs. The respondents’ ratings indicated their perception of how effective the region's current strategies were in responding to the factor variables.

Qualitative data collected from the field were coded and edited immediately after the research team returned from the field. This was done each day to ensure that all errors are corrected to improve on the quality of data for further analysis. Tape-recorded interviews were first transcribed word for word, and interviewees’ responses were transferred into NVIVO for further data analysis. Responses from interviewees were coded R1, R2, R3, …, R6. Also, the two follow-up FGDs held to validate the findings from the interview were coded as FGD1 and FGD2. FGD participants were then coded P1, P2, P3, …, P6. The FGDs were also recorded and transcribed using the same process as the interview. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed on the gathered primary data, which included organising the data, finding and organising ideas and concepts, building overarching themes in the data, and ensuring reliability and validity in data analysis. Interview results and feedback from FGD were compared with triangulate results from the data collection methods. Themes developed through the qualitative study guided the development and administration of the quantitative questionnaire to understand residents’ participation in the PCWP further.

Quantitative data was manually organised due to the small number of questionnaire surveys administered. A SWOT matrix based on the rated responses was used to organise the issues into external and internal factors. In creating IFE and EFE, each key factor was assigned a weight ranging from 0.0 (low importance) to 1.0 (high importance). The number indicates how important the factor is in the scenario under consideration. The sum of all the weights must equal 1.0. The ratings in IFE refer to how strong or weak each factor is in the case under consideration. The numbers range from 4 to 1, where 4 means a major strength, 3 is a minor strength, 2 is a minor weakness, and 1 is a major weakness. Strengths can only receive ratings of 3 and 4, and weaknesses 2 and 1.

On the other hand, the ratings in the external matrix referred to how effectively the region's current strategy responds to the opportunities and threats. The numbers range from 4 to 1, where 4 means a superior response, 3 is an above-average response, 2 is an average response, and 1 is a poor response. Ratings, as well as weights, are assigned subjectively to each factor based on obtained responses. Results from the qualitative and quantitative studies were integrated for interpretation.

The study findings show that the participation of citizens in the PCWP commences from the developing project guidelines to evaluating the project outcome. Developing the guidelines for the PCWP encompasses the involvement of citizens at all stages of the lifecycle of the project – project planning, design, implementation, and evaluation stages. This section of the paper presents key findings on the assessment of citizen participation in the three key stages of the PCWP in the Bosomtwe District: (i) planning and design, (ii) implementation, and (iii) management and evaluation.

Study findings reveal that citizen participation levels during the planning and design stage of the PCWP were below the expectations of the community. According to study participants, there was an increased knowledge about the commencement of the project at the regional capital, but residents’ involvement during the planning phase was limited. Some respondents expressed their frustration and shared that the reason behind the inception of the project in their locality is great. However, the planning approach adopted rendered the project more of an imposed one than a collaborative outcome. This theme was further highlighted during the FGD phase of the study. Here, some study participants emphasised that deliberations on the project participation guideline of the PCWP were dominated by Ghana Water Company Limited (GWCL) and the partners themselves.

During the FGD sessions, it became evident that whereas many residents were aware of the intended project, no proper deliberations were held with locals. In cases where project coordinators held some sort of early deliberations, many described it as superficial. Adding to this, study participants stressed the prejudice of project coordinators who perceived that many local residents have little or no knowledge on water projects and hence less regard for local input in the planning and design phase of the project. Evidence from the FGD2 showed that only a few educated individuals were adequately contacted during this stage of the project. Whereas some residents complained of never being involved in all the preliminary surveys and deliberations about the project in their community, others who were contacted confirmed their minimal participation in the project planning. Regrettably, some argued that people involved in the design of the projects hardly lived in the community and hence had less knowledge about the pressing issues worth considering prior to the commencement of the project. As a result, many study participants agreed that the overall local inputs into the planning and design phase of the PCWP were minimal.

During the implementation stage of the PCWP, citizen participation was generally considered relatively significant. Study findings showed that local human resources were largely used in the implementation stage of this project. Broadly put, citizen participation during the project implementation took place in two ways: active and passive involvement. While active citizen participation took the form of labour hire and representation in the project workforce, passive participation involved citizens calling in during GWCL radio programs to articulate succinctly their views on how certain activities should be performed for successful project implementation – although project partners required a high level of expertise in the implementation phase. Study respondents confirmed that a significant number of residents were recruited and put on the project. According to some respondents, many of the recruited locals were given a number of trainings from health and safety to specific expertise required to execute their roles. Data gathered confirmed that employed locals in each section of the project were offered a mentor and a supervisor who ensured that recruited staff gained adequate knowledge and skill to perform assigned tasks. Some study respondents emphasised that not only were they offered a job in the project implementation but also, some had the opportunity to be recommended to other organisations involved in the execution of similar projects.

During the FGD sessions, despite support for earlier views shared in the interview stage, others objected to the equal job opportunity argument that emerged. A significant number of FGD participants shared that the criteria for recruitment were biased towards specific groups or families in the case communities. It was added that while some families had more than five members recruited for the project, others had no single member employed. To some participants, this led to misunderstanding and protests from local groups against the whole project. During the protests, evidence showed that the whole project was put on hold, which contributed to the overall delay in the implementation timeline of the project. Apart from the weaknesses identified within the recruitment process, some participants shared their discontent about the attitude of supervisors on the project. To some participants, given that supervisors are experts outside the community, training opportunities for higher roles were usually offered to their people rather than the local people employed on the project.

After the implementation of the project, the GWCL was, in principle, in charge of its management. However, a local project committee was established to take charge of the project's sustainability, particularly management and regular maintenance practices. In terms of management, study respondents indicated that establishing the local project committee to see to the daily running of the project was helpful. In the area of monitoring the projects, respondents stated that the services of local community groups in ensuring that unscrupulous individuals do not steal project materials at night were deemed critical. This led to the formation of volunteer groups to curb the increasing theft cases recorded on materials for the construction of the projects. Respondents argued that despite these locals having better knowledge about the possible threat that can endanger the project's smooth operation, there is a greater sense of community ownership. Sense of community ownership is ‘bestowed on each committee member's responsibility for ensuring that the project is well operated and can benefit the future generation. A respondent who is actively involved in the project committee confirmed that the idea of giving locals a chance to play a role in the management of the project is not only a great feeling but also a golden opportunity to serve the community.

To other respondents, although a local project committee was established for such a purpose, the continuous influence of GWCL undermines the committee's overall performance. Similar issues were mirrored during the FGD sessions. Participants acknowledged the great efforts of project partners to establish a local management wing, however, they expressed their discontents about the capacity of the committee. To some participants, although the committee did a great job regarding its management and maintenance roles, much could have been done if its capacity had been enhanced. Although the established local project committee is assigned specific tasks, the GWCL directly or indirectly impacted its operations. Study participants argued for the need for capacity building and empowerment for the committee in carrying out its activities.

Evaluation of the projects took the form of citizens taking part in GWCL and local project committee surveys and phone-in calls during radio programs. A significant number of study respondents acknowledged the relevance of the project's evaluation phase, hence the reason for the high level of participation among project beneficiaries. The evaluation helped the local people to assess the project's performance in terms of assessing its economic and social impacts. Many study respondents indicated that the GWCL and local project committee did periodic survey exercises to ascertain the performance of the project. Study data gathered shows that there is relatively high local participation in these evaluation exercises. To study participants, the evaluation phase presented an ideal platform where local experiences with the project were expressed. Besides this, tokens were usually offered to survey participants during the evaluation stage of the project to entice local residents’ interest in the exercise. Whereas some respondents were sceptical about how far their views on the project can help improve current situations, others identified the exercise as the ideal way to assess the project's relevance to the community. However, new issues of concern emerged during the FGD sessions in the designated regions. Some participants argued that although the evaluation exercise was presented to look like the local residents participated fully, the reality is different. To these respondents, the GWCL is ready to ensure full participation in these ‘last phase’ exercises since it is a key requirement of project partners. Participants further explained and described the evaluation exercise as one pursued by GWCL not because it can offer a local perspective about the project's impact but rather, one that project partners require.

After the qualitative phase of the data collection, the advanced SWOT analysis was performed on the findings to ascertain policy suggestions. Finally, both IFE and EFE matrixes analyses were carried out to triangulate with the qualitative findings.

In response to the question about the strengths and weaknesses of PCWP in terms of citizenship participation in the project cycle, the participants’ diverse views were evaluated using the IFE matrix. The ratings in IFE refer to how strong or weak each factor is to the case under study.

The weighted score of 3.07 indicates that considered factors within the IFE matrix have a significant relation with the central issue under consideration. Expressed differently, all rated variables obtained from the qualitative phase of the study are relevant for assessing citizen participation in the project cycle and informing reliable policy suggestions (Table 1).

The clear specification of the goals of PCWP in the Bosomtwe District recorded a weighted score of 0.30. High community enthusiasm to support the project and the availability of cheap labour within the project communities achieved the highest weighted score of 0.40. This is an indication of the intrinsic role that high community spirit and available cheap labour played in the successful implementation of the project. More so, a significant number of study respondents indicated the valuable role high maintenance culture, excellent community-funding partners’ relationships and high respect for indigenous culture played in the project's success, scoring 0.36, 0.36, and 0.32, respectively. Easy access to the water table also recorded the least weighted score of 0.15. According to the study participants, the shallowness of the water aquifer reduced the cost and time taken to complete some expectations of the project. Similarly, respecting indigenous culture, such as the pouring of libation and sacrificing animals to thank and invite the gods of the land to take control of project spiritually, helped to amass community support for the project. The study results showed that the high respect for indigenous culture improved the cordial relationship between the project partners, community members, and leaders.

The study respondents also suggested the community's low level of project awareness, especially at the project planning and design stage, and the dominance of powerful families in the project cycle retarded the pace of the project at some point. A low level of project awareness and dominance of powerful families - especially the royal families - within the project cycle was a major weakness of the project, with a weighted score of 0.20 each. While some families recorded a significant number of its members employed during the recruitment process, others had none. Community members agitated and protested the unfair recruitment process, which also halted the implementation process. Adding to this, one relevant factor that hindered the implementation of the project was the lack of clearly articulated communication channels about the project, with a weighted score of 1.20. Some members of the local project committee suggested a poor line of communication as they did not know which office or personnel to contact when they needed something to work effectively. Complicating matters further, results indicated that facilities such as centres to organise training programs to enhance the skills of labourers were not readily available, which worsened the prevailing condition. The results showed that classrooms of community schools were converted to training rooms to organise programs geared towards skills improvement. In a situation where classrooms were unfit as training centres, workers were transported to the district capitals where GCWL had such facilities.

The ratings in the external matrix referred to how effectively the region's current strategy responds to the opportunities and threats.

The respondents suggested that the establishment of a skill development program led by friendly and expert coordinators, timely release of project funds and effective coordination between project partners and GWCL each received a weighted score of 0.40. According to local project committee members, the timely release of funds for each phase was a key factor in project continuity. In addition, respondents made references to other projects, such as affordable housing within the metropolis, that were abandoned due to lack of funds. The study found that the skills development program helped to bridge the gap between what they knew and the required skills needed for the execution of the project. Some beneficiaries of the skills development program revealed that it helped them use machines and other modern technologies for the execution of some duties which were previously done manually. Similarly, in-kind support from GWCL metropolitan and regional offices in the form of additional training equipped labourers with other technical skills that were not considered in the skills development program. The well-articulated project goals, together with specified roles for stakeholders, made coordination between GWCL and project partners effective and prevented duplication of resources and functions. Overwhelmingly, support from neighbouring community leaders and the community's historical significance recorded a weighted score of 0.15 and 0.24, respectively. The timely intervention of the leadership of neighbouring communities during the agitation against the recruitment process restored peace for the continuation of the project. The community's significance for the Akwasidae festival and Ashanti heritage, and the project team's respect for the land goddess also helped the project gained high recognition (Table 2).

The negative perception of personnel of GWCL towards local knowledge recorded a weighted score of 0.18. As revealed by some respondents, the authorities of GWCL perceived those project beneficiaries lacked the technical expertise to contribute towards the project. This was evidenced as respondents indicated a low level of awareness of the project. In addition, respondents indicated that their views were not considered during the planning and design stage of the project. Unsurprisingly, the local project committee was not given the opportunity to make decisions within their jurisdiction. Project partners and GWCL monopolised the decision-making process because of their technical expertise. The influence of skilled labour from other districts and the stealing of project materials by people from other communities recorded a weighted score of 0.20 each. Top roles during the recruitment process were reserved for relatives and friends of project supervisors and managers. This was a contributory factor to indigenous people's agitation against the recruitment process. Also, unscrupulous individuals outside the community conspired to steal project materials at night. However, the community members formed a volunteer group to oversee project materials and construction sites. The analysis showed that the motivation for the decision of community members to support the project was low, recording a weighted score of 0.25. The high community spirit of project beneficiaries overshadowed the inadequate motivation packages for people to actively participate in the project.

In Ghana, the involvement of local residents in the planning, design, implementation, and management of water projects is widely incorporated in the National Water Policy (NWP). The NWP vividly acknowledges the role, level, and extent of stakeholder participation in water-related projects at all scales of development. Also, NWP specifies the approaches in which organisations and local government can share the responsibilities in the planning, design, and management of water resources with local communities. The recognition of local-level participation is anchored by the principle of subsidiarity which encourages the lowest appropriate level in society to participate in decisions that affect them actively (Okyere et al., 2019; Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2020). However, this study found that the translation of the NWP's policy goals on local resident participation in water governance programs remains a major challenge. This study finding is in line with study results by Erdiaw-Kwasie et al. (2020) and Olagunju et al. (2019) which revealed that the gap between policy and practice in water-related projects in most developing countries exists and keeps widening.

Local residents’ awareness of the PCWP was low as a result of the approach that GWCL and funding partners used during the awareness creation. The Piase community indicated their level of awareness of the PCWP as low. Many residents of Piase saw the use of radio as a medium of creating awareness as problematic in two ways. Firstly, the time that was mostly fixed for the program was inappropriate as many residents were at work. Secondly, though the radio program provided opportunities for listeners to share their opinions people who called in were not direct beneficiaries of the project. This reinforces current discourses on how the lack of inclusive platforms for participation in community-driven projects generates exclusionary mechanisms where project beneficiaries have less power in determining the trajectory of local interventions. Community members and leaders officially became aware of the project weeks before its implementation. Most community members perceived that their voices had been ignored and sidelined initially. This situation is uncommon in Ghana's water sector, where the tendency for project beneficiaries to be excluded from decision-making at the project framing and planning stages is deeply rooted in community development practices (Kilasim, 2016). Spatially considered, this finding corroborates observations in previous studies that the practice of local participation in water projects in peri-urban and fringe communities operates within an entrenched development assumption that beneficiaries are only relevant at the project construction phase (Kilasim, 2016; Mvulirwenande et al., 2019). Such a practice does not augur well the success of community-based water projects and goes against emerging calls for locally situated, but multi-actor-led planning and development of water projects to enhance implementation and long-term sustainability in the African continent (Ngaruiya et al., 2015; Mangai & De Vries, 2018).

The study found that for higher participation of residents in water projects, local residents’ awareness in terms of project knowledge is a prerequisite and a condition necessary to motivate beneficiaries to participate in project discussions. It is, however, not surprising that the low level of awareness of the Piase community translated into their low level of participation in the initial stages of the project. This finding draws attention to the potential relationship between local awareness and participation in community-based projects as substantial evidence demonstrates that well-informed beneficiaries often exhibit active engagement in project implementation (Abunyewah et al., 2019; Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2019; Hasan et al., 2022). Here, providing reliable, adequate, and timely information through inclusive and accessible platforms by local government and funding agencies could go a long way to encourage project beneficiaries to participate in issues at the initial stages of the project. Our results also indicate that the changes in the level of awareness and participation of residents through the employment and representation of residents on the committee at the implementation stage made the PCWP a success. In addition, the enthusiasm water supply problem and the zeal of local residents to solve the perennial water supply problem overshadowed the initial awareness problem. Positioned in global south contexts, this study's finding is similar to that of Mangai & De Vries (2018) that deep involvement and immersion of water project beneficiaries in decision making during implementation is critical for its success. This ties into Kerr et al.’s (2012) study in Tanzania that residents' willingness to embark is more relevant to the successful implementation of projects.

Our results also elevate the importance of cultural sensitivity to successfully implement community development projects (Banks et al., 2018), including those envisioned within the water sector. For example, one important factor that led to the successful implementation of the PCWP was the ability of GWCL and funding partners to work within the confines of community culture and respect for cultural heritage. Specifically, proactive embracement of community culture led to amassing support and devotion to ensure project success by community members. Similarly, studies in small towns and rural communities of Scotland and Australia show that leveraging local culture and cultural heritage contributes to the mobilisation and support of local communities for successful execution of community development projects (Brascoupé & Waters, 2009; Beel & Wallace, 2021). This suggests that development practitioners in the water sector need to institutionalise community development practices where local culture is prioritised in project planning and design, especially where indigenous communities are intended beneficiaries.

Evaluation of the project was done in two phases: (i) during and (ii) after implementation. During the implementation of PCWP, radio programs were organised to increase awareness and solicit ideas from the public to improve the project outcome. The radio coverage resulted in non-beneficiaries taking part in discussions, and sometimes their suggestions were upheld in favour of community members. PCWP was again evaluated through a survey where respondents answered a number of questions relating to the planning, design, implementation, and management of the project. Though the idea to consult project beneficiaries was praised by residents, they felt the use of community information radio centres and community meetings would have been more effective and better. Here, as in studies elsewhere, the medium of engagement (e.g. community meetings) matters when active and full participation of beneficiaries in community-based water projects is envisaged (Adams & Zulu, 2015; Finewood, 2016, Erdiaw-Kwasie et al., 2020). Also, residents of Piase indicated that they were actively engaged during project evaluation because it was a major condition for additional funding by partners. As mentioned earlier, without institutionalisation of participation at all stages of the water project cycle, participation can take the form of tokenism to satisfy funding agencies rather than a core community development practice.

Overall, our SWOT approach shows that the main strengths of the project lie in high community spirit, availability of human resources, the healthy relationship among stakeholders, and clearly defined goals of the project. In addition, the presence of an external skilled development program and funding availability was instrumental in the project's success. On the other hand, critical weaknesses such as low project awareness, the dominance of powerful families and undefined communication channels slowed scheduled project completion timelines. The divergent issues call for the need to institutionalise participation at all levels especially initial and evaluation stages, while enhancing project platforms for community-expert exchanges to enhance engagement.

This paper has described an application of the SWOT matrix tool to explore the cascading impacts of internal and external project-level factors on project planning and evaluation. A mixed-methods approach was used, drawing on the data from interviews and rated questionnaire responses to elicit insights from various participants with functions and experience in community-based project planning and implementation. Researchers collated this information into an advanced SWOT matrix tool that synthesised the inter-relationships among the project domains – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This provided insights into how the impacts of project-level factors in one domain could cascade into other domains and how domains were interdependent, creating circular (and repeating) cascades.

The advanced SWOT methodology elicited interdependencies and interconnections (among each domain) and enabled an understanding of multiple underlying factors shaping project planning and evaluation at community levels. Given that project planning and evaluation procedures can be complicated by numerous criteria and interdependencies and the conflicting priorities of key actors, the adoption of a more advanced SWOT matrix technique that measures and takes into account the possible dependency among the factors would be of value to building on existing knowledge. Adding to this, the advanced SWOT matrix tool enabled exploration of the influence of different factors, both positive and negative, and investigation and understanding of the governance implications of domain factors impacts and actions within the project planning and evaluation process.

In order to develop an improved rural water policy, it is first necessary to examine the characteristics of the current water system. To build a framework for community-based water project evaluation, future research can employ the advanced SWOT matrix to map the contextual factors shaping rural water sources in similar developing regions. An evaluation framework of this type can be useful for examining potential future policies related to promoting actions that maximise strengths and opportunities. Using the advanced SWOT matrix in this study, we will be able to generate some of the most comprehensive data series on rural water projects in developing regions. In addition to the existing literature, the study will also deepen our understanding of rural water project evaluations in developing regions and lay the foundation for improving the outcomes of rural water projects.

In conclusion, this paper's methodological approach and findings offer significant insights. Study findings can serve as a baseline idea for community project managers and planners in developing decision-making frameworks sensitive to local situations, a challenge that many community-based project planners continue to grapple with within the context of complex project environments. Understanding the interdependencies and interconnections among underlying variables that shape the project environment can offer valuable and transferable lessons to community development actors and policymakers.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.