Rural Development Indicators

RURAL DEVELOPMENT
INDICATORS
A report prepared as a partial requirement for RD 201
November 21, 2020
Nathaniel Vincent A. Lubrica

Exploratory questions
• WHAT ARE INDICATORS?
• BASED ON PAST LESSONS, CAN YOU GUESS PROBABLE RURAL
DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS?
Objectives of the Presentaition
a. Define indicators and its nature;
b. Explain how indicators are derived;
c. Explain the scope and limitations of indicators;
d. Categorize the indicators for rural development;
e. Compare rural development indicators in the Philippines vis a vis
other countries;
f. Identify emerging methods and modelling techniques for rural
development indicators based on scientific researches; and
g. Evaluate the applicability of literature based indicators in certain
localities.
Report Outline
Part 1. Indicators
Part 2. Six (6) Scientific Literatures on RD Indicators (2011 - 2020)
Part 3. Philippine RD Indicators
Part 1.
INDICATORS
What is an indicator?
• a thing, specially a trend or fact, that indicates the state or level of
something (Oxford)
• a gauge or meter of a specified kind (Oxford)
• one that indicates (Merriam-Webster)
Lesson Learned: Characteristics of Indicators
• Should be measurable
• Can be derived from scientific publications
• Can be derived from policy issues (from local to national level)
• Can be selected based on certain set of criteria
• Should be updated based on changes on the rural societies
• Sub-indicators can be clustered to a bigger indicator
• Vary according to geographic scope
• May be tangible or intangible
• Can be inter-related, corellated, or interactive with each other
• May not be the same across othe rural areas
• Rurality is a broad construct
Two Approaches in Selecting Indicators
• Sectoral Approach
> appropriate for developing countries
> main economic activity
• Territorial Approach
> appropriate for developed countries
> spatial characteristics (e.g. distances, population density)
Three Dimensions of Any Indicator
1. the state or situation or level of the indicator;
2. the dispersion or concentration or variability of this indicator; and
3. the tendency or trend of this indicator over time.
Lessons Learned: Uses of Indicators
• summarise the phenomena it is necessary to produce some measures
of the level
• some measures of component dispersion and concentration should
be provided
• are things improving of getting worse – what is the trend over time?
• comparison with non-rural areas
• each dimension of a given indicator adds important information for
the policy discussion.
• Rural policy proofing (Europe) ; Rural lens (Canada)
Statistical Requirements of Rural Indicators
1. Understandable
2. Transparent
3. Significant and Relevant
4. Analytical
5. Complete
6. Reliable
7. Comparable
8. Coherent
Statistical Requirements of Rural Indicators
9. Continuous
10. Accessible
11. Timeliness
12. Not expensive
Lessons Learned: Gaps an Limitations
• Literature on rural development policy assessment is well aware of
the risk of this “ecological fallacy. (Camaioni et al., 2019)
• Indicators need to be emperically tested. (Desjeux et al., 2015)
“URBAN AGGLOMERATIONS”
“URBAN-RURAL Dichotomy”
Part 2.
Six (6) Scientific Literatures on
RD Indicators
(2011 - 2020)
Rural Development Indicators and Diversity in the
European Union (Bryden, 2011)
• Territorial framework
• Main indicator themes: Social Well-Being, Economic Structure, and
Performance
• 500 indicators reduced to 55 indicators with the standard criteria of
sensitivity, analytical soundness, comprehensibility, reference value,
and political relevance.
• 10-20 year medium term planning and policy
OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OECD Metacategories Theme
• Quality of Life and Social Well-being;
• Economic structure and performance; and
• Demographics.
PAIS: Proposal on Agri-Environmental Indicators

Dynamics of Rural Areas (DORA) Research
Most robust measures of economic performance (small regions and
below)
> Population change over time
> Net migration flows
> New enterprise start-ups
> Employment rate -- employed & self-employed as a share of working-
age population
> Growth of employment (including self employment) over time
> Levels of education and training in the labor force
> Tourism accomodation occupancy rates
Indications and clues on indicator contrast across
rural areas
1. Shift-share analysis of employment;
2. Performance in the new rural economy sectors;
3. Net migration flows;
4. Public sector employment trends;
5. Economic structures and enterprise formation; and
6. Infrastructure and peripherality.
Maps and Indicators of Rural Development
Measures (Santiago-Frejanes et al., 2015)
The AGFORWARD research project (January 2014-December 2017), funded by the
European Commission, is promoting agroforestry practices in Europe that will advance
sustainable rural development. The project has four objectives:
1. to understand the context and extent of agroforestry in Europe;
2. to identify, develop and field-test innovations (through participatory research) to
improve the benefits and viability of agroforestry systems in Europe;
3. to evaluate innovative agroforestry designs and practices at a field-, farm- and landscape
scale, and
4. to promote the wider adoption of appropriate agroforestry systems in Europe through
policy development and dissemination.
Rural Development Measures (Santiago-Frejanes
et al., 2015)
111 Vocational training and information actions
112 Setting up of young farmers
113 Early retirement
114 Use of advisory services
115 Setting up of management, relief and advisory services
121 Modernisation of agricultural holdings
122 Improvement of the economic value of forests
123 Adding value to agricultural and forestry products
124 Cooperation for development of new products, processes and tech
125 Infrastructure related to the development and adaptation of agriculture
and forestry
et al., 2015)
126 Restoring agricultural production potential
131 Meeting standards based on EU legislation
132 Participation of farmers in food quality schemes
133 Information and promotion activities
141 Semi-subsistence farming
142 Producer groups
143 Providing farm advisory and extension services
144 Holdings undergoing restructuring due to a reform of a common market
organisation
211 Natural handicap payments to farmers in mountain areas
212 Payments to farmers in areas with handicaps, other than mountain areas
et al., 2015)
213 Natura 2000 payments and payments linked to Directive 2000_60_EC
214 Agri-environment payments
215 Animal welfare payments
216 Non-productive investments
221 First afforestation of agricultural land
222 First establishment of agroforestry systems on agricultural land
223 First afforestation of non-agricultural land
224 Natura 2000 payments
225 Forest-environment payments
226 Restoring forestry potential and introducing prevention actions
et al., 2015)
227 Non-productive investments
311 Diversification into non-agricultural activities
312 Support for business creation and development
313 Encouragement of tourism activities
321 Basic services for the economy and rural population
322 Village renewal and development
323 Conservation and upgrading of the rural heritage
331 Training and information
341 Skills-acquisition and animation measure with a view to preparing and
implementing a local development strategy
411 Competitiveness
et al., 2015)
412 Environment/land management
413 Quality of life/diversification
421 Implementing cooperation projects
431 Quality of life/diversification
511 Technical assistance
611 Complimentary direct payments
Santiago-Frejanes et al., 2015
Evaluating the impact of rural development
measures on nature value indicators at different
spatial levels: Application to France and The
Netherlands (Desjeux et al., 2015)
• Proposes Agri-environmental schemes and rural development
measures aimed at:
> enhancing the natural value of farmland; and
> releasing the pressure on the environment due to agriculture
• Correlation methods was used to determine indicator relationships
• farmer incentives for preserving the environment
• Spatial approach for inidcators; Moran's I clustering algorithm
• Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (CMEF)
Farm nature indicator
• addressing crop diversity,
• grassland share, and
• wooded: and afforested farmland
High Nature Value (HNV) Farming
• Within the CMEF, the HNV farmland indicator appears as:
> a result indicator
> a baseline indicator
> an impact indicator
HNV indices for arable land, grassland, and
permanent crops
• For arable land: crop diversity and nitrogen input;
• For grassland: stocking density of grazing livestock, coupled with
information on livestock density capacity;
• For permanent crops: nitrogen input, used as a proxy for
management intensity;
• For olive groves: different classes of management intensity.
Noord-Holland case study
• crop diversity index
• Nitrogen surplus index
• stocking density index
Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) policy
relevance:
• Actions to convert to or to maintain organic farming;
• Actions related to integrated production or integrated farm man_x0002_agement;
• Other activities in favour of the extensification of farming sys_x0002_tems: reducing the
use of fertilisers and pesticides and the extensification of livestock farming;
• Crop rotation, maintenance of set-aside areas;
• Actions to prevent or reduce soil erosion;
• Actions in favour of the promotion or conservation of genetic resources (local breeds in
danger of being lost to farming, plants under threat of genetic erosion);
• Biodiversity conservation and enhancement actions;
• Preservation of landscape and historical features on agricultural land, such as hedgerows,
ditches.
Gender Equality and Social Capital as Rural
Development Indicators in Indonesia (Case:
Malang Regency, Indonesia); Surjono et al., 2015
• Objective was to determine linkage between Gender Inequality Index
(GII) and social capital using Socal Captal Assessment Tool (SOCAT).
• SOCAT is a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis (Carol-
Levie, 2002).
• The study follows a descriptive design.
• GII rates in the study area were low while social capital was relatively
strong.
Gender Equality and Social Capital as Rural
Development Indicators in Indonesia (Case:
Malang Regency, Indonesia); Surjono et al., 2015
Social Capital, Surjono et al., 2015
Social capital assessment tool utilizes trust, norm and networks of the assessed
community to measure the level of capital. The roles of community groups and
institutions are important here (Beard & Dasgupta, 2006). The assessment was
qualitatively analyzed the social capital in the study area. Several general
description of the characters of the community are:
• Community was responsive to any significant social and environmental issues in
the village. Community was able to find way to solve the problem through
community gathering and discussion. Donomulyo and Sumbermanjing Kulon
Villages had set community discussion periodically (once per week).
• Election of community chiefs was conducted through village conference or
acclamation process. Most of the community chiefs were in their position for a very
long period. The only village which set particular period of leadership, i.e. 6 years,
was Sumberoto Village.
• The community were able to decide active social groups which played important
roles in village development and to improve property of the society.
• Sharing of resources was well managed with limited conflicts and competition
between community groups.
• All members of the groups were involved in the decision making process
• The roles of the government were providing funding, socialization, information,
motivation, and evaluation. The general characters of the community indicate that
the social capital has been developed. In more specific, associated with trust, norm,
and networks can be elaborated as follows:
• • Trust
• The trust of the community to their chief was relatively high, as well as trust among
the community and between community groups. The trust of the community to the
local government has supported government-led programs through effective
counseling and socialization of the programs to community groups.
• Norm
Village community upheld social norms firmly. The norms were formed in community
groups and from the government. The norm increased social bonding among community
members, and formed participation in the decision making.
• Networks
Networks in the villages were shown from the interconnectedness of the people between
groups, village’s resource sharing. Community was also active in the involvement of
association, groups and other institutions at the community level. From the networks of
the institutions, active groups could be distinguished from their activities in village
development and some others were active in community’s economic empowerment.
Landscape indicators for rural development
policies. Application of a core set in the case study
of Piedmont Region. Gotero & Cassatella, 2017
• Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
• The main result, in an Italian pilot case, reveals direct and indirect
relations between Rural Development Programmes (RDPs) and
landscape, not only in terms of negative effects, but also in relation to
the real contribution of CAP towards preserving farmland and
enhancing the rural landscape.
Selection Criteria
• they support policymaking on landscape and agriculture; landscape indicators
are applied at regional scale. However, some indicators can also be used at
sub-regional scale;
• the core set is designed to reflect the multidimensionality of landscape, so
including not only the ecological, but also the perceptual, historical and
cultural dimension (Cassatella and Peano, 2011);
• the feasibility of the core set, in other words the existence of a cognitive
background and data-source;
• − the replicability and transferability (especially in the European context) of
the selected tools.
The assessment of rural development:
Identification of an applicable set of indicators
through a Delpi approach. Abreu & Mesias, 2020
• Indicators must be adaptive to the dynamics of change
• This paper presents a set of demographic, economic, environmental
and social welfare indicators that must be taken into account to
assess rural development and related policies.
• Using the qualitative Delphi methodology, a group of experts
analysed 88 proposed indicators, after which a set of 25 was selected
based on their importance and on the consensus of the panel.
The assessment of rural development:
Identification of an applicable set of indicators
through a Delpi approach. Abreu & Mesias, 2020
Section Questions
• What literature based indicators do you feel is applicable in the
Cordillera rural development?
• What ideas did the section presentation provided you for a probable
scientific study?
Part 3.
Philippine RD Indicators
The Philippine Rural Development Project
( https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-
operations/project-detail/P132317)
• The Rural Development Project for the Philippines aims to increase
rural incomes and enhance farm and fishery productivity in targeted
areas by supporting smallholders and fishers to increase their
marketable surpluses and their access to markets.This will be
achieved through:
(a) supporting changes in agricultural and fisheries planning, resource
programming and implementation practices; and
(b) financing priority local investments in rural infrastructure and
enterprise development derived from agricultural and fisheries
modernization plans, using a value chain approach, and through
stakeholder consultations.
• The project's Global Environment Objective is to strengthen the
conservation of the coastal and marine resource base in targeted
program areas through biodiversity conservation and fisheries
resources management. This will be achieved through:
(i) enhancing institutional and planning capacities of local government
units and communities;
(ii) providing support to marine protected areas in particular areas of
global biodiversity significance and select fishery co-management
arrangements; and
(iii) sharing of knowledge and best practices.
• There are four components to the Project and the Global
Environment Objectives.
Component 1 focuses on local and national level planning. The
planning, programming and budgeting processes related to the
development of the agricultural and fisheries modernization planning
process is the main basis of decision making and operations of the
Department of Agriculture at the national, regional, local levels, as well
as selected marine protected areas.
Component 2 concerns infrastructure development. The project will
carry out of specific sub-projects to support infrastructure
development by local government units in priority commodity value
chains (including, among others, farm-to-market roads, bridges, tire
tracks, communal irrigation
Results Framework:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE INDICATORS
• Increased real household incomes of farmer and fisher folk
beneficiaries
• Increase in Marine Protected Areas (MPA) management effectiveness
in selected sites in Global Environment Facility (GEF) target areas
• Increased income of beneficiaries involved in enterprise development
• Increase in value of annual marketed output
• Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services
> Farmers reached with agricultural assets or services - Female
Results Framework:
INTERMEDIATE RESULTS INDICATORS
• Provincial Commodity Investment Plans agreed based on regional Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Programs (AFMPs)
• Roads constructed
> Roads constructed - rural
> Roads constructed - non-rural
• Proponent group members operating viable enterprises

• Philippine Rural Development Project's (PRDP) enhanced operational procedures, standards and tools for Local
and National Planning, Program Support, Infrastructure and Enterprise support mainstreamed across DA agencies
• Provincial Commodity Investment Plans (PCIP) being used by provinces as platform for leveraging additional
resources and convergence
• Women directly benefiting from enterprise development
• Grievances registered in the project's grievance redress system addressed
Results Framework:
• Provincial Commodity Investment Plans using enhanced climate risks and
resiliency criteria to identify and prioritize investment
• Producer productivity enhanced through arrangements for marketing
and/or technical services
• Specific area based integrated Plan, Program and Budget for Technical
Service Delivery being implemented
• Reduction in travel time
• Productivity in globally significant fish biodiversity sites enhanced
through improved resource management, biodiversity conservation, co-
management arrangements, and knowledge sharing ( % increase)
Results Framework:
• Biodiversity conservation and coastal resources co-management features
incorporated in the PCIPs (no. of provinces)
• Reduction in transport costs of roads linking production areas to markets
• Producers satisfied with adequacy of access to post-harvest services and
facilities
• Area provided with new/improved irrigation or drainage services
> Area provided with new irrigation or drainage services
> Area provided with improved irrigation or drainage services
https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=Awr469zKMrVf5R4AGUFXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNncTEEcG9zAzEEdnRpZANBMDYxNV8xBHNlYwNzcg--
/RV=2/RE=1605739338/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fdocuments.worldbank.org%2fcurated%2fen%2f642121500873599819%2fpdf%2fDisclosable-Version-of-the-ISR-
Philippine-Rural-Development-Project-P132317-Sequence-No-07.pdf/RK=2/RS=Qo0DqugqoCoCPxVNjdTR9ZMhMIo-
Relating Rural Access Index and Poverty in the
Philippines. Bantang, 2020
Ways Forward
• Policymakers should not fully rely on developing road networks for
rural areas to alleviate poverty. Other aspects of the people’s lives
should be looked into (e.g. employment, education, health, etc.)
• Do we need to develop more roads to reach rural areas? OR Can
we move residents residing in far-flung areas nearer to all-season
roads? [Which is more cost-efficient?] - for areas with low RAI
• For areas with high RAI and high poverty incidence, have we
already stopped after building roads?
Section Questions
• How did the Philippine rural development indicators compare to the
literature based indicators?
References
• Abreu, I., Mesias F.J., 2020. The assessment of rural development:
Identification of an applicable set of indicators through a Delpi approach.
Journal of Rural Studies.
• Bantang, J.A.O., 2020. Relating Rural Access Index and Poverty in the
Philippines. 6th International Conference on Big Data for Official Statistics.
• Bryden, J.M., 2011. Rural Development Indicators and Diversity in the
European Union. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228865950_Rural_Development_I
ndicators_and_Diversity_in_the_European_Union
• Camaioni, B., Coderoni, S., Esposti, R., and Pagliacci, F, 2019. Drivers and
indicators of the EU rural development expenditure mix across space: Do
neighbourhoods matter? Ecological Indicators 106 (2019) 105505.
• Desjeux, Y., Dupraz, P., Kuhlman, T., Paraccini, M.L., Michels, R., Maigne, E.,
Reinhard, S., 2015. Evaluating the impact of rural development measures on
nature value indicators at different spatial levels: Application to France and
The Netherlands. Ecological Indicators 59 (2015) 41-61.
References
• Gotero, E., Cassatella, C., 2017. Landscape indicators for rural development
policies. Application of a core set in the case study of Piedmont Region.
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 65 (2017) 75-85.
• Handbook of Rural Household, Livelihood and Well Being. Retrieved from
www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/stats/documents/rural/7.e.doc
• Santiago-Frijanes, J.J., Pisanelli, A., Mosquera-Losada, M.R., Ferreira-
Dominguez, N, 2015. Maps and Indicators of Rural Development Measures,
potentially related to Agroforestry, across the EU (2007-2013). Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315543742_Maps_and_indicators
_of_Rural_Development_Measures_-_Agforward_-_en
• Surjono, Prasiska, Y., Sutikno, F.R., 2015. Gender Equality and Social Capital as
Rural Development Indicators in Indonesia (Case: Malang Regency, Indonesia).
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 211 (2015) 370-374.
• The World Bank. Philippine Rural Development Project. Retrieved from
https://projects.worldbank.org/en/projects-operations/project-
detail/P132317

Rural Development Indicators

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rural Development Indicators

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

November 21, 2020

Nathaniel Vincent A. Lubrica

PAIS: Proposal on Agri-Environmental Indicators

• Proponent group members operating viable enterprises

You might also like