MAPP – a participatory method for impact assessment of programmes and projects

Project description

MAPP is a participatory impact analysis method used to systematically ascertain the user and intermediary view of development policy measures. Based on group discussions, the method uses a fixed sequence of six to eight interrelated instruments which, taken together, make it possible to come up with a robust assessment of changes on the ground, to assign impacts to measures, and to identify intended and unintended impacts. The methodology, first referred to as SWAP, was developed in 1999 at the DIE by Susanne Neubert; since 2000 the method has been called MAPP.


MAPP has already been used by numerous freelance experts. The method can be used to evaluate a large range of programme types: the sectors in which has been used successfully include resource management, agriculture and rural development, water, fishery, decentralisation, health, and education. MAPP can also be used - for optimal results in combination with other instruments - for sector or portfolio analyses (see the DEZA sector analysis). MAPP is well suited for all types of financial and technical assistance for local to national programmes geared to the population level as their final users. Experiences with MAPP have already been gained on all continents. All that is required for a successful use of MAPP is the existence in the partner country of a certain discussion culture.


MAPP is a systematic before-after comparison that analyses past points of time retrospectively. Starting out with a given reference point, and adhering to a fixed structure, participants jointly discuss developments and impacts, evaluating them on the basis of a system of points. MAPP is in this sense at once a context- and process-related approach. In the first step MAPP identifies changes that have occurred in people’s life contexts; only in a second step are the causes (external framework conditions or development measures) assigned to these changes. The approach also gives consideration to programmes of other donors in the target region. MAPP captures the impacts and outcomes of measures, including planned and unplanned, direct and indirect, positive and negative effects.
With MAPP the attribution gap is bridged by using an influence matrix that serves to attribute, weight, and explain the intensity of the measures under consideration. All measures are assessed in terms of their impacts on all criteria that, taken together, describe the goal concept. The findings gained in the discussions are validated first in communicative terms and then with the aid of triangulation (redundant supervision, cross-checking with data from other sources and documents).


In using MAPP, a set of defined instruments are deployed in a logical sequence. Depending on the purpose of the exercise, the investigation can also fall back on only part of the instruments available. In its minimal variant, MAPP consists of the use of (1) lifeline, (2) trend analysis, (5) influence matrix, and (6) development and impact profile. In the ideal case, the results are jointly assessed in the discussion round.

1. Lifeline: This shows overall development in the project region (including external crises and shocks) over a longer period of time (e.g. 10 years)

2. Trend analysis: This identifies changes in relation to around 10 criteria that together describe the goal concept (e.g. poverty reduction, democratisation).

3. Cross-checking: This instrument is useful for checking information both on the programme environment and on the measures used.

4. List of measures: This is used to determine the relevance of measures in the context of other measures (e.g. of other donors) and to attribute own contributions to the working and financial context of the target group. This sets the stage to derive conclusions on significance, relevance, and chances of reaching sustainability.

5. Influence matrix: This serves to attribute effects to measures, with the positive and negative influences that measures have on criteria being determined and graded on the basis of a point system. Key measures and bottlenecks are identified.

6. Development and impact profile: The most important information obtained with all instruments are summarized here. It is also possible here to determine whether the overall course of development is robust (even) or vulnerable (uneven) and what main factors have done most to promote development in the region.

7. MDG table: The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are listed here together with the targets, and the influence matrix is used to derive directly whether and to what extent impacts have contributed to reaching the MDGs.

8. Participatory development planning: The point of this instrument is to ensure that far from remaining an end in itself, the evaluation process serves as a point of departure for other development processes.


The results are easy to understand and transparently reflect the stakeholder perspective. The conclusions drawn and possible new measures can be introduced directly, as proposals, into the programme evaluated and/or a newly conceived programme. Negative impacts that may have been identified can be used as a point of departure to develop compensatory measures or serve as an impetus to change course.


In organisational terms, a MAPP should be prepared by staff members on the ground. The pure data collection and evaluation work then usually takes two to three days, depending on the number of instruments used and the number of criteria and measures to be evaluated. If several rounds are needed (larger samples due to large-scale programmes) and/or subgroups need to be formed (e.g. women and men), the exercise will, accordingly, take more time. MAPP analyses can be carried out by trained local staff with experience in moderation and/or with participatory methods.


MAPP can be used to investigate all types of measures whose impacts can be perceived by target groups. It is suitable to evaluate multi-dimensional goal concepts like poverty reduction, democratisation, decentralisation, etc. that are described on the basis of multiple criteria. MAPP takes explicit steps to bridge the attribution gap, including possibilities to compare various views and perspectives (controversies). The results of different MAPP surveys can be aggregated in cases involving broadly conceived measures that call for large samples. The fact that users are included systematically facilitates efforts to make direct use of the results and to identify the need for further measures.
The instrument is focused on the impact level (outcomes and impacts). The quality and validity of the results obtained with MAPP depend on the evaluator’s moderation skills and the composition of the discussion groups, which should be as heterogeneous as possible.