Search

Initiated by a research project examining agricultural and water resilience in South Africa and tested in workshops on a range of topics, we reflect on our application of a half-to-one day &ldquo, games designing&rdquo, format for constructing dynamic metaphors for complex systems and related concepts (e.g., the resilience or sustainability of a catchment/agricultural marketing system). While this short format gives rich and detailed games that potentially could be played in an extended version of the workshop, we did not go ahead with this step. Instead, we devoted the limited time available to supporting participants in designing, comparing and discussing their games and to exploring the concepts and meanings of a given complex system, even if the latter was initially deemed by participants to be abstract and &ldquo, academic&rdquo, Our abridged term for short-format games designing is &ldquo, rapid games designing&rdquo, (RGD). Key benefits to participating individuals, the whole group and workshop organizers include (a) the highly productive and creative use of limited time, (b) an inclusive group exercise that draws everyone into the process, (c) rich discussion of pluralist viewpoints through the comparison of the remarkable variety of games generated, including their differences in purpose, players and rules, and (d) observations on how the games construct a dynamic metaphor for the system and its properties, leading to deeper insights and knowledge building regarding system concepts and components. Here, we use two case studies in South Africa to explore what value RGD provides and how it does so, and then we briefly compare it to other similar methods. We also provide practical guidance for facilitating RGD workshops. In conclusion, we argue this format offers an option for the ongoing evolution of games about complex human, natural and socio-ecological systems and that it generates considerable creativity, learning, discussion and insights amongst all participants.

Sanitation (the separation of human beings from our excreta) is an often-neglected aspect of public health which brings substantial health and socioeconomic benefits. In last decade, sanitation has begun to receive more attention, especially due to its inclusion as a target in the UN Millennium Development Goals in 2002 and as a human right in itself in the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 2010. Currently, progress towards the Millennium Development Goal target is measured by a sanitation “ladder”, which classifies sanitation provision by hardware type and separates “improved” technologies (considered adequate) from “unimproved” technologies (considered inadequate), providing an estimate of the percentage of the population with access to adequate sanitation. All latrines shared among different households are considered inadequate. However, there is compelling evidence that other aspects of sanitation (especially hand-washing, and the amount of excreta in the environment) are equally if not more important in bringing health benefits and no reliable method of measuring these has yet been found. In addition, it is questioned whether the current method provides sufficient detail to make policy decisions at local level. This study reviews the literature to present the main challenges currently experienced in monitoring sanitation in rural development contexts and explore possible ways forward. These methods are then tested using data from a set of detailed household interviews carried out in rural Kenya to identify the most important sanitation indicators. This analysis suggests that the current hardware-based indicator predicted latrine conditions well, but that to capture more detail a question could be added regarding whether the latrine hole has a cover in place, and whether faeces is observed in the latrine. It is also suggested that shared latrines be distinguished from public latrines, by recording the location of the latrine. The presence of soap or ash for hand-washing was found to be a good proxy indicator of good hygiene, though it is suggested this be amplified by questions on hand-washing frequency and children’s faeces disposal. To measure the amount of excreta in the environment, three community-level indices were proposed: percentage using an improved latrine, percentage in excreta-free conditions and percentage not defecating openly.