•
Who will decide which species to include?
•
What criteria will be used to determine which species to include and exclude?
Participatory methods for prioritizing species are described in the section on ‘Prioritizing species according to subjective criteria’.
The decision about who chooses the species to include in the guide is similar to the one about who decides the purpose of the guide. To some extent, the decision must be influenced by those who are expected to use the guide because they are the ones who know their needs. However, if the users knew all of the species, they probably would not need a guide; therefore, suggestions for species may come from other knowledgeable sources, such as local people and botanists. Finally, of course, the authors of the guide will have their own suggestions, and these will often complement those made by users or local people, based on the authors’ insights into both the kinds of information that might be helpful and the species occurring in the area. So a balance is needed between these different views.
For example, the criteria for Arboles y Arbustos para Sistemas Agroforestales en los Valles Interandinos de Santa Cruz, Bolivia (Vargas et al, 2000) were that the species should be the most broadly distributed in the region of Santa Cruz, Bolivia, with the highest economic potential, service and subsistence value. Species were prioritized through a mini-survey in six communities of the Andean foothills. The authors interviewed farmers about their species preferences and found that:
•
Priorities varied between different ecological zones.
•
Fuelwood species were favoured in the highest zones.
•
Fodder species were favoured in the driest zones.
•
Timber species were favoured in the lower subtropical zone.
•
Species priorities varied between men and women.
•
Women prioritized fodder and medicinal species.
•
Men prioritized fuel and timber species.
The authors then combined the priorities of farmers, both women and men, from all three ecological zones, with some lesser-known species recommended by biologists.
Four aspects of design
Apart from the species content, the overall design of the guide must be considered carefully at this early stage. Four broad aspects of design cover all of the factors that need to be taken into account:
1 text – descriptions of each species, as well as any other explanatory text, such as an introduction; factors to be considered include content, format and layout; 2 illustrations for each species, as well as illustrations to accompany the introduction, glossary, etc.;
32 Plant Identification
Table 3.2 Options for guides based on the four key aspects Aspect Sub-aspect
Possibilities
include
Further
information in
Text Information
Scientific
name
Chapter
7
about each
Synonyms
species
Common name(s)
Botanical description
Diagnostic characteristics
Habitat
Distribution
Ecology
Phenology
Use; economic importance
Conservation status
Cultivation
Management
Harvest
Similar species
Folklore, etc.
Other written
Preface
Chapter 7
sections
Acknowledgements
Contents page
Who and what this guide is for
Geographic or botanical area covered
Map
How to use this guide
How to identify plants in the field
Key characteristics of the plant
group covered by the guide
Introduction to encourage readers to
use the guide
Glossary
Language of
Language
Chapter 7
written text
Style
Use of technical terms
Formatting of
Font
Chapter 7
written text
Size
Spacing
Number of columns
Title; subtitles – number, format (bold,
italics or underlined) and spacing
Mixing text and illustrations
Access systems
Navigating
Indexes
Chapter 5
around the
Icons
guide
Names
Order
Page colour
Illustrations
Format
Colour; black and white
Chapter 8
Photographs/drawings
Silhouettes
Illustrated glossaries
Physical aspects
Materials
Paper
Chapter 3,
Cover
Box 3.4 and
Binding Table
3.5
Size
Planning and budgeting 33
3 access systems – tools for finding information (these can include identification keys, indexes, coloured page margins and symbols to help the user navigate around the guide), as well as factors such as the order in which the species are presented; 4 physical attributes, such as size and durability.
Variables for each of these aspects are listed in Table 3.2 as a checklist of options to consider when planning the design; each aspect is described in greater detail throughout the rest of this book. The text, illustrations, access systems and physical attributes must be considered carefully and discussed with the relevant stakeholders in order to decide what is most relevant, accessible, informative, cost effective, usable and attractive. Table 3.2 serves as a reminder of the alternatives, but even more helpful would be to review a range of existing guides that demonstrate these different characteristics (for example, photographs or drawings; small or large pages; local names and/or scientific names).
As Table 3.2 demonstrates, the different aspects of guides are all related to each other. For example, in producing A Field Guide to the Rattans of Lao PDR (Evans, 2001), the text was kept to a minimum and was always closely related to pictures and photographs. Furthermore, the authors decided that for ease of comprehension, they would keep a uniform format for describing each species so that all characters were included for all species. This approach helped to develop consistency throughout the guide and appeared to make species identification easier; but it meant that decisions about content and format affected decisions about photographs and access systems.
In thinking about the physical aspects of design, authors need to consider all of the options, including posters, books, leaflets, CD-ROMs and loose-leaf folders. Some of the pros and cons of each are described in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Comparing different physical designs of guides Guide format
Pros
Cons
Book
Easy to take into the field
Users may not wish to take an expensive
Can hold a lot of information
or heavy book into the field
Relatively hard wearing
Familiar format
Poster
Visually interesting
Cannot take into the field
Easily displayed in prominent
Number of species and information on
places, thereby reaching a larger
each very limited due to space
audience
Leaflet
Easily taken into the field
Not hard wearing
Number of species and information on
> each very limited due to space
CD-ROM
Accessible by many (as long as
Cannot take into the field
equipment is available)
Requires high-specification equipment
Can hold a lot of information
and reasonable knowledge of computers
Small and easily stored
Loose-leaf folder
Can select pages that you wish
Pages may easily go missing
to take into the field
More hard wearing than leaflets
Easy to add additional species
later when more funds or
knowledge become available
34 Plant Identification
METHODS FOR CONSULTING
Given all the options outlined above, consultations with stakeholders are required to discuss the aim, species content and design of a guide. While separate planning activities can be held for each of these aspects, many of the same stakeholders and methods will be useful for each, and it may make sense to combine some of them in small workshops.
Here we offer a range of approaches for helping stakeholders to contribute to the planning phase. We focus on the participatory approaches needed for working with communities or multiple institutions. Although a more top-down approach can be taken, this risks producing a guide that is less useful than it might have been.
In our combined experience of producing dozens of field guides, we have found that the best place to start is to examine a range of published examples. This is particularly helpful when consulting with rural people who may have little experience of field guides.
By examining the type of paper, the kind and size of images, the arrangement of the photos throughout the text, the size and clarity of the font, and the level of language, you can help your stakeholders to think through the aspects that work for them.
Consultations with whom?
Obviously, the results of the consultation survey will depend upon whom you interview, so you need to choose your participants with care. The main point about choosing people to define user needs, whether through a questionnaire or through a workshop, is that you do not need a large number; but they must be representative of the users. It is not necessary or appropriate to carry out a detailed survey with statistical analysis of the results, although some indication of the ‘convincingness’ of the results (such as ‘most people were able to identify plants with drawings’) is useful, especially where the guide’s readers are expected to be in the thousands. It is important to ensure that the informants either know the users well or include a wide range of people expected to use the guide (for example, both men and women, if community members).
It is not always possible to reach the users; in some cases, it may be necessary to work with intermediaries who have a good understanding of potential users instead. Case study 3.1 describes how staff of the Fundación Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN) planned the format for the guide for visitors to the Noel Kempff Mercado national park in Bolivia. Their user group – eco-tourists – comprises an elusive and highly seasonal target for questionnaires; so the authors held a group discussion with the park guards who work with the tourists and who have come to know their expectations and interests.
Workshops, group discussions, interviews and questionnaires There is no doubt that the best way to define all of these needs and preferences is to gather a sample group of the users, or their representatives, together for a group discussion or workshop in order to analyse their information needs, as well as their impressions of a range of existing guides, their preferences and their understanding of the guide’s content. A well-planned and informative workshop will take a whole day; but this is a good investment. In groups, people stimulate each other’s thoughts and help to build up a sense of consensus. Care must be taken when using this approach, however, as it can generate a lot of extra information – people enjoy the chance to air
Planning and budgeting 35
their views and in a group may interrupt one another or ‘help one another out’, or not take turns.
Box 3.2 describes one workshop format, based on an experience with farmers, environmental activists and local health workers in the state of Pará in northeast Brazil.
Here, an environmental NGO had been working with the farming communities for several years, helping them to document knowledge of medicinal plants, cultivate them in nurseries, and test new combinations of native trees and crops in agroforestry systems. The workshop participants were therefore enthusiastic about documenting and sharing their knowledge of local plants, and had an excellent working relationship with the NGO. They were willing to spend a day reflecting on their experience and planning a new guide because of this positive experience. They had used a few guides themselves, which they brought to the workshop as examples, and analysed them together with a range of other guides brought by the facilitators to stimulate discussion.
The basic aims of the workshop were to:
•
define a field guide and its purpose;
•
review a range of field guides and comment on their positive and negative characteristics;
•
test the usability of the field guides by searching for particular information;
•
test the clarity of illustrations by checking recognition of local well-known species using only the drawings or photographs given in the guide;
•
test the usability of the field guides by attempting to identify selected species in the field.
These exercises helped to stimulate discussion on the purpose and content of the proposed new guide, and helped the facilitators to find out what really worked, as well as what was appealing to users.
A helpful method to use with groups or individuals at the exploratory stage of planning is semi-structured interviewing. Unlike the questionnaire method, which follows a list of ready-made questions, semi-structured interviewing starts with more general questions or topics and allows the facilitator and the group to probe for details or to discuss issues. It is less formal and more fun than using a questionnaire, and can help participants to get to know the other stakeholders. The method is described in more detail in Chapter 7, but can be used in a group discussion to help plan the guide.
Where people have less time or inclination, the guide may have to be planned in a less participatory way by interviewing willing individuals. In this case, the best way to ensure that all of your questions are answered is to prepare a structured questionnaire (see Chapter 7 for further information on questionnaires). Informants should be carefully chosen, either as thoughtful, responsible members of the group for whom the guide is intended, or as key people who know them well. Again, it will help to ask informants to comment on a range of field guides, to describe their experience in using guides and to explain what they might use a new guide for.
Prioritizing species according to subjective criteria If you can assemble a group who represents the interests of the users of your guide, then you can conduct a brainstorming exercise with them where everyone contributes ideas
36 Plant Identification
BOX 3.2 A WORKSHOP TO PLAN A FIELD GUIDE WITH STAKEHOLDERS
•
Objective: this workshop is to help potential users define the reasons for producing a guide, select format and content, and plan the activities involved in producing it. The example described here aimed to help participants:
–
define a field guide and its purpose;
–
review a range of field guides and comment on their positive and negative characteristics;
–
test the usability of the field guides by searching for particular information;
–
test the comprehension of illustrations by checking recognition of local well-known species using only the drawing or photographs given in the guide;
–
t
est the usability of the field guides by attempting to identify selected species in the field.
•
Output: a plan for the production of a user-friendly field guide.
•
Staff: a facilitator.
•
Participants: representatives from as many primary stakeholder groups as possible, representing a range of users.
•
Time: one day.
•
Equipment: a range of field guides; sufficient stationary such as flip charts, pens and forms for participants.
•
Rationale: workshops are a good way of involving many stakeholders and promoting discussion between different user groups. The results from this workshop should give an indication of the type of guide that stakeholders would like. It should meet the needs discussed, and ideas for the format and layout can be gleaned from existing guides, taking strengths from each and avoiding weaknesses.
Before the workshop
•
Think carefully about who to invite: include a representative range of users, rather than focusing on bringing together a predetermined number of participants.
•
Locate a trained facilitator who has had experience of workshops before.
•
Define the workshop’s aims.
•
Make sure that participants understand the aims of the workshop before they arrive.
The workshop
The dynamics of the workshop activities should vary to maintain interest and should include some group activities, some discussion in pairs and some evaluation of particular guides.
Step 1: Introduce the objectives of the guide
These will depend upon the stakeholder. For example, if a community-level guide is planned, objectives will be to:
•
stimulate group/individual discussion about the characteristics and role of plant field guides in the user group;
•
identify current user perceptions regarding the utility of plant guides;
•
identify the present level of use of plant guides by the user group;
•
identify the key user needs/priorities with respect to plant field guides;
•
develop principles/criteria for developing an ‘idealized’ plant guide for the community.
Planning and budgeting 37
In addition, are other types of guides required? Are there any general questions that could be listed here?
Step 2: Group discussion session
Plant Identification Page 7
