Zeinab Karimi - Postdoc researcher of Yazd University, Faculty of Management and Desert Areas

Background and objective: Watershed implementation projects represent crucial infrastructure endeavors in many countries, demonstrating positive impacts in virtually all pilot regions. Each implementation project comprises planning, execution, monitoring, and assessment phases. In this context, the overarching goal of project planning is to enhance performance. However, there is no consensus on the best approach to project planning. Consequently, this study conducts a descriptive comparison of two methods: the Logical Framework Approach (LFA) and the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA). The aim is to assist planners in selecting the most suitable method according to their specific needs.Materials and methods: Modern research and the examination of various methodologies have provided the means to plan projects for optimal performance. In this regard, a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of both LFA and PRA methods was conducted, drawing from an extensive body of literature.Results and conclusion: In essence, there is no significant disparity between these two methods. The primary contrast between LFA and PRA lies in the fact that LFA anticipates external factors that may influence project success or failure. Furthermore, all stakeholders impacting the project play a role in pivotal decisions. Hence, it can be argued that LFA addresses the deficiencies and limitations of PRA, presenting itself as an ideal model for optimal decision-making. Consequently, it is recommended that this method be utilized in future research endeavors, particularly in assessing country watersheds.

Logical framework approach, Participatory rural appraisal, Planners, Suitable model