Research Questions



The Government of the Republic of Moldova considers land consolidation as one of essential factors for ensuring the economic viability of rural areas. The degree of fragmentation is regarded often as a major obstacle to agricultural development, because it causes inefficiencies in production and involves large costs to alleviate its negative effects. In Moldova’s case the land fragmentation refers to the existence of a number of spatially separated plots of land, which are under various ownership and farmed as single units. In response to Government’s concerns on the high rate of agricultural land fragmentation resulted from the privatization process, the Rural Investment and Services Project II (RISP II) launched in August 2007 a pilot land re-parceling component (LRC) with the objectives to: (i) (ii) assess the feasibility and test the demand of land re-parceling, having small-scale landowners as the primary target group; based on gained experience to develop a methodology to be used at the national level, including techniques, resource requirements, and legislative framework; evaluate the impact of re-parceling at the local level, including land markets, agricultural production, and equity.


Focused on landowners with small isolated land plots, the LRP was called to concentrate on developing and create a range of options related to not only selling of small and remote parcels but also resulting in parcels consolidated in convenient locations and shape. It was expected that the consolidation of land parcels would result in (i) extension of activities by commercial-oriented farmers, (ii) increase in incomes / remuneration for owners who lease or intend to sell the land, (iii) increases investments in agriculture. LRP was implemented in 6 pilot villages involving voluntary, market-based transactions and extensive community consultations prior to the transactions and a participatory approach. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine whether, and the extent to which LRP (i) resulted in consolidation of land plots and changes in land tenure, (ii) led to improvement of the farming efficiency, (iii) produced expected social effects within pilot communities, and (iv) created grounds for improving environmental effect. This evaluation envisages a multidisciplinary approach involving economic, environmental, and social factors and will focus on the following research questions: (i) consolidation of land plots and changes in land tenure a. to what extent land re-parceling influenced property structure in participating communities? b. to what extent land re-parceling influenced land usage?

The quantitative method will be based on randomized controls design using difference-in-difference comparisons. We will compare the performances of key indicators achieved by beneficiaries during the program with those prior the project.1. This method consists of building relational tables of questions. Percentage of agro productive area worked by the owner I-1. social and environmental evaluation issues comparing the situation before and after the intervention. Quantitative methods will be used to measure the project’s impacts and qualitative methods will be used to understand the factors associated with its success or failure and the likelihood of sustainability.2. Average area per active holding I-1.1. evaluating impact by measuring the change in outcome indicators at the beginning and after project intervention.9. Number of plots per mayoralty I-1. what are the effects of the measures taken to improve the environment as a result of the re-parceling? Methodological Approach The modern theory for evaluation of land re-parceling (consolidation) projects explicitly recommends that such types of studies have to include economic. Number of active holdings I-1. how land re-parceling influenced the local land market? (ii) improvement of the farming efficiency a. i. to what extent were social safeguards of the project effective? b. Changes to the land tenure structure C-1.3. To address these questions.5.c. Changes in the number of parcels per active holding C-1. Average holding size I-1.5. we will rely on both quantitative and qualitative methods. what is the demand for re-parceling among smallholders? (iv) grounds for improving environmental effect a.4. criteria and indicators.7. Has the land re-parceling influenced property structure in participating communities? Criteria Indicators C-1. how land re-parceling influenced agricultural production and production costs? (iii) social effects within pilot communities a. This approach will be based on the use of the standard model of comprising questions.8.6.e. criteria and indicators (TQCI) for each of the investigating subjects (research questions). Number of plots per active holding I-1. Number of plots per owner I-1. Changes in the number of parcels per farmer I-1. Percentage in agro productive . Thus.2. for this evaluation we propose to use the following research format: LAND TENURE ANALYSIS Research Question 1. Average size of a plot I-1. Changes in number of active holdings C-1. Changes in the average are of active holdings C-1.4.3.

Changes to the local land market as a result of re-parceling. (2006) . Area of land devoted to vineyards. average size of plots of owners e. These indices will be classified as follows: (i) indices on size and density of plots. shape. average number of plots per owner c. orchards and arable land Research Question 3. O – number of land owners 1 van Dijk (2000). Gonzalez et al. number of plots b. In this study the proposed indices will include criteria regarding size and number of plots in the pre. Number of transactions I-3. Changes to land use and production as a result of re-parceling. To use this method we will develop and integrate a set of indices to measure the effects on plot size. Has the land re-parceling influenced the land usage? Criteria Indicators C-2. Has the land re-parceling influenced the local land market? Criteria Indicators C-3. I-2. I-3.2. Changes in percentage of agro productive area worked by leaseholders area worked by leaseholders Research Question 2. and Pc – number of plots in pos-consolidation phase f.consolidation situation in pilot villages.1. The proposed method is based on the use of some metric parameters that allow performing the analysis of land consolidation works and to determine the success of a land consolidation project. Area of land under production I-2. (i) indices on size and density of plots will include: a. Changes in the percentage of agro productive area worked by the owner C-1. and (ii) indices on edge and shape ratio.2. Reduction Index RI – Reduction Index. P – number of plots in pre-consolidation phase. average size of plots d.7. Land price In addition to the above we will use the metric assessment method1 for land consolidation projects.and post. Consolidation Coefficient RI – Reduction Index. and productivity.1.C-1.6.

4. Labor (family and hired) I-4. Total Edge (meters) measures the total perimeter of all the plots in project area p(i) – plot perimeter b. Farm consumption of own products I-4.5. Actions taken to improve the environment Has the land re-parceling influenced the social Indicators of I-6. I-4.1. environmental and social analysis will be entirely based on TQCI and is described below. a. Changes C-4. Changes expenses in the agricultural to the cost of in farm resources in farm sales and in revenue and I-4.9. Changes production C-4.2.1. Results on physical relocation I-6. Purchased inputs.10. Total output (in money units) I-4.5. Has the land re-parceling influenced agricultural production and production costs? Criteria Indicators C-4. machinery.1.2. Farm production costs (itemized) I-4.11. Farm sales I-4. safeguards? Criteria C-6. Changes consumption C-4. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Research Question Structure of family income (farm and non-farm components) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Research Question 5. Edge Density (m/ha) measures the edge length (m) per unit area (ha) A – total project area The methodological approach for the economic. Beneficiaries worthiness effectiveness . Changes production C-4. Has the land re-parceling influenced the environment as a result of the re-parceling? Criteria Indicators C-5.3. farm buildings and investments I-4.1. Changes in measures taken to improve the environment SOCIAL ANALYSIS Research Question 6.7. Output by commodity (in physical units) I-4.8.4. Product mix (crops and livestock by commodity) I-4. Yields per hectare and per animal.2. Changes in social safeguards I-5. Farm net income I-4.(ii) indices on edge and shape ratio – these are used to measure agricultural land efficiency.12. Sales revenue (by major categories or total) I-4.

1. inputs. Situation on irrigation. Ability of Local Council’s secretaries to carry out certain notariallike duties as a result of training received in the project land re-parceling influenced local Indicators I-9. Changes local socioeconomic factors which influence LRP’s success The qualitative method will be used to enhance the quantities findings through providing a better understanding of stakeholders perceptions and priorities for the processes that may have affected project impact. Changes in conditions that adversely affect re-parceling C-7. Changes on equity C- Knowledge of the project I-7. Agreement among family members I-7. Changes in attitude towards reparceling service C-7.1. Extent to which households are satisfied with the procedures I-7. Changes to the income of beneficiaries Research Question 8. such services? Criteria Has the land re-parceling influenced the demand on Indicators I-7. Incomes C-7.I-6.5. Perception of family well-being I-7.the extent to which the project objectives have been achieved Efficiency . marketing channels.1. Local socioeconomic factors which influence LRP’s success C-9.1. Changes in conditions that adversely affect farming C-7.9. Costs of participating I-7.2. transportation I-7.considerations in a comparative prospective of the project against existing accepted norms • • . mechanization.8. This approach will be used to describe the following impact issues: • Relevance .3. Willingness to participate in the project Research Question 7. Extent to which farmers are satisfied with the outcomes I-7.6.3.the coherence of project objectives with identified needs and priorities and to the appropriateness and realism of the project setting Effectiveness .5.1.4. Changes in attitude towards the effects of re-parceling C-7. Changes in the ability of Local Council’s secretaries to carry out certain notariallike duties as a result of training received in the project Research Question 9. Impact on the equity I-7. Has the land re-parceling influenced the ability of Local Council’s secretaries to carry out certain notariallike duties? Criteria Indicators C-8.1.7. socioeconomic factors ? Criteria Has the I-8.

a special Matrix of Analysis will be designed and its proposed structure is given below: • • • • • Research questions Indicators Methodology of collection Sources of information Responsible for data collection Exploring Data Availability. Within the proposed impact evaluation we propose the following data collection instruments: • Quantitative data a. In addition to questionnaires. Before launching. the evaluation still has to address not only the project impacts. there will be used direct observations during the face-to-face interviews . In addition. Although the TOR stipulates explicitly the objectives of the study. approaches: face-to-face structured interviews b. setting output and impact indicators as well as constructing a solid evaluation strategy to provide answers to questions posed.• Sustainability . any new data collection activities assessing what data exist is a first important step. It is eminent that reliable data are essential to produce a high-quality report. That is why we proposed the partition of the research questions into specific subcategories. instruments: special designed questionnaires. Various types of information related to the study are already available and will be studied within this impact evaluation: • • • • • • Terms of references Project’s quarterly and annual progress reports. but also aspects of project operations and targeting.the capability of the project to continue to produce effects after its completion Evaluation Phases Clarifying Evaluation Objectives. and technical reports Relevant documentation from national/local partners and other donors Legal texts and political commitments pertaining to the project and land consolidation in general Governmental national and sector policy documents Relevant policy and planning documents from national/local partners and other donors Data Development. Clear objectives are essential to identifying information needs.

direct observations. the total sample will include: Community Raion Number of beneficiar ies Sample 58 24 127 43 24 15 291 150 441 Busauca Rezina 578 Sadova Calarasi 240 Bolduresti Nisporeni 1270 Calmatui Hancesti 430 Opaci Causeni 240 Baimaclia Cantemir 150 Total sample Control group: 3 communities 50 interviewees per Total sample • Analysis and reporting. textual and anecdotal data. Content analysis. b. and data analysis b. key-questions guidelines for interviews of local public authorities. The data analysis will be based on two main techniques: a. For a better information reading data will be classified in special categories taking into consideration the needs for cross-referencing. approaches: focus-group interviews. Statistical methods. This group will consist of 1 international and 4 national consultants with a substantial experience in evaluation studies and assigned with responsibilities linked to task performing management and collection of information from national level entities. • Sampling As TOR states the study shall cover six pilot communities and three communities as control group. Evaluation Team With the purpose of a more effective impact assessment accomplishing we well make two groups of consultants: • International/National level experts’ team. study preparation and report writing. This technique will be used to analyze data drawn from interviews. semi-structured or informal interviews. public sector and other relevant for community development institutions. .• Qualitative data a. instruments: focus-group interview matrix. observation and documents. Based on collected questionnaires there will be created the main database. According to TOR.

. fieldwork guidelines.their main responsibilities will cover direct supervision of the fieldwork. data quality review. and preparation of field information in required formats for the national level experts’ team. Three regional level consultants will supervise three local teams each . This group will consist of nine field-operator teams (one team per community) of two consultants each.• Field team.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful