Dunn, T.

This article reports on the application of RRA in two Australian rural communities by first-time RRA users. It focuses on what was learnt about RRA, how to get started and how applicable it is felt to be in Australia. It also discusses institutional barriers to a RRA approach. RRA ties into the need to develop new extension approaches in Landcare work in Australia to tackle complex land and social degradation problems.

This report discusses the results of a community survey conducted to establish the scope of run-off water problems, and to identify ways to promote community cooperation and participation. Prior to the survey, researchers consulted secondary sources. Survey interviews were conducted by 32 students and five university staff during a one-day field visit. People were interviewed about the runoff problem and associated issues. Then patterns in the information were identified by first listing all the issues people discussed and then identifying themes around the issues.

Charles Sturt University was approached to help implement a community survey for the Flowerpot Hill Landcare group (FHLG). This group was formed to control run-off water which damaged town property. The information gained from interviews with members of the group, residents, farmers and council members, is presented as "issues" (specific knowledge, problems or feelings expressed by individuals) and "themes" (generally agreed important areas of concern).

RRAs were conducted in two local Landcare areas of Australia by the students and staff of Charles Sturt University-Riverina. The ethos of Landcare is based on "groups of people who work together to care for the land in their local area" and it was felt that a PRA/RRA approach might provide a solution to the problems faced by Landcare committees and extension workers. The paper describes the organisation and methods of the RRAs from data collection phase through to data analysis and feedback to participants.

A report which was sent back to landholders in Kyeamba, NSW. It documents the findings of a days RRA work, a follow-on from a more extensive PRA excercise in 1991, examining perceptions of Landcare, its activities and its structure. It is found that landcare, which attempts to enable a community as opposed to individualistic approach to controlling envioronmental degredation, is reasonably well respected and attended in the area. However, many feel that erosion and other land constraints are 'someone else's problem'.

It concerns an attempt to describe the origins and process of the "Griffith RRA" approach, developed by staff at Charles Sturt University, and looks at what a team learnt from a specific RRA exercise of this nature, during January 1993. The paper includes a section looking at the methodology of this exercise; the background to the "Griffith RRA" methodology; a look at the results of the analysis; followed by a discussion of its findings.

It describes and discusses the extension paradigm and qualitative research methodology known as "Rapid Rural Appraisal", in relation to a farmer focused survey conducted in the MIA by a multidisciplinary research team, referred to as the "Griffith RRA". The paper compares two extension approaches: the Transfer Technology (TOT) and Farmer First paradigms. It then concentrates on the latter, looking specifically at the "Griffith" approach and the subsequent analysis.