1 / 17

Evaluating the Improvement of Quality of Life in Rural Areas

Evaluating the Improvement of Quality of Life in Rural Areas. Cagliero R., Cristiano S., Pierangeli F., Tarangioli S. Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria (INEA), Roma, Italy. 122 nd European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar Evidence-Based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making

terah
Download Presentation

Evaluating the Improvement of Quality of Life in Rural Areas

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating the Improvement of Quality of Life in Rural Areas Cagliero R., Cristiano S., Pierangeli F., Tarangioli S. Istituto Nazionale di Economia Agraria (INEA), Roma, Italy 122nd European Association of Agricultural Economists Seminar Evidence-Based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making Methodological and Empirical Challenges of Policy Evaluation February 17th – 18th, 2011, Ancona (Italy) Centro Studi Sulle Politiche Economiche, Rurali e Ambientali associazioneAlessandroBartolastudi e ricerche di economia e di politica agraria Università Politecnica delle Marche

  2. Outlines • Aimof the study • Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the conceptofQoL • The evaluativeapproachesproposedby the EuropeanCommission • CMEF • WP • The evaluativeapproachesproposed in Italy • The marginalityindex in Piedmont • The QoLindex in Emilia Romagna • Conclusions and reflections

  3. The study Background • QoL & CAP: vagueness in the conceptualization • Mainly focusing on economic development of rural areas Aim • Analysing the evaluations designs and the first findings of the Mid Term evaluations of the RDPs: evaluative dimensions and methods • Exploiting the possible contribution of the evaluations to a better understanding of the QoL in rural areas

  4. QoL within the CAP • RD policy identifies a number of interventions for improving the QoL in rural areas - broad notion of QoL - not exploiting the concept • QoL is one of the 3 EU priorities in RD: • The creation of employment opportunities • diversification of the rural economy (all sectors) • improvement of QoL (attractive places to live and work) • A set of measures (toolbox for Axis 3 in RDPs): • Diversification of the rural economy • Non-agricultural activities of farmers; small business creation and development, tourism, small scale infrastructure • Quality of life in rural areas; Basic services for the rural population, rural heritage and renewal • Training, skills acquisition and animation; Area studies, information, training animators, leaders, promotional events, partnerships

  5. QoL within the evaluation of RDP The evaluations are expected to assess the improvement of QoL in rural areas as effect of programmes’ implementation. EQs? Dimensions? Criteria? Methodologies? Approaches?

  6. Monitoring and evaluation in RD • CMEF: • hierarchy of objectives • hierarchy of indicators • “intervention logic” • CMEF doesn’t provide specific tools to evaluate the contribution to improve QoL • - only EQs Source: CMEF, 2006

  7. The CMEF • Focusing on: • Economic approach • Sector development (agriculture) • Households ---- no direct effect on individuals & rural population • Evaluation questions • Measure-driven: i.e: To what extent has the support contributed to promote diversification and entrepreneurship? • Vague on QoL: i.e: To what extent has the support contributed to improving the quality of life in rural areas? • Indicators: • Adequateness: mostly linked to entrepreneurial performance (R-GAV, I-employment creation, I-economic growth)

  8. The WP • Proposes a conceptual evaluative model for assessing the effects of measures improving the QoL in rural areas and guides the evaluation activities • defining the dimensions of QoL in the context of the RDPs • identifying a set of expected impacts (Axis 3-4) • identifying a set of relevant assessment criteria, related evaluation questions and indicators

  9. QoL background in EU evaluation • Introduces three principal and integrated dimensions: • the socio-cultural and services dimension: • “soft” factors (community life, traditions,...) • “hard” factors (buildings, infrastructures, ...) • the environmental dimension: encompasses the human • wellbeing arising due to the conservation and upgrading of • environment and rural heritage. • the economic dimension: implies an adequacy and security • of income.

  10. Linkages between dimensions of QoL Source: Helpdesk of the Evaluation Expert Network

  11. EU Evaluationapproach 1 Rural Development Programme (RDP): 1 indipendent evaluator Ex - ante evaluation Fixing baseline indicators Assessing the relevance and the coherence of RDPs On-going evaluation of RDPs CMEF provides: a list of common evaluative questions to be addressed within the mid-term and the ex-post evaluations a list of common indicators Working Paper “Assessing the impacts of LEADER and the measures to improve QoL in rural areas ” The Common Monitoring Evaluation Framework (CMEF): the guidelines • Complementing the CMEF: additional Eqs, criteria and indicators • Going beyond the quantitative approach and the economic performance • Introducing qualitative dimensions of evaluation • Evaluating the local governance (LEADER) • Proposing territorial approach: participative evaluations and self-assessment • Proposing methods: SNA, social accounting, multicriteria rating tool

  12. Depopulation Deterioration of demographic bases (% decrease of active population) Erosion of inexpensiveness soil for local services Lack of factors endowment Tourism can help to curb the process… Decrease of income and consumption potential Negative influence: Positive influence: Index of marginality The assumption: Marginality is considered very close to the concepts of wellbeing and QoL, or better can be deemed as a proxy of their lack.

  13. Index of Marginality • Defined by: IRES Piemonte • Composition: • 11 indicators grouped into four dimensions • Demography • Income • Endowments • Activities • data at the municipality level • standardized model • Model’s Usability: • for performance analysis by spatial approach • comparing territorial distribution of support by RDPs with indexes of marginality (target group vs regional average) • for “Before-After” approach highlighting changes over time

  14. Quality of Life Index • Defined by: Agriconsulting • Composition: • 25 indicators grouped into six dimensions • Services • Economy • Infrastructures: • Environment • Culture • Quality of social and institutional process • data at sub-regional level • Model’s Usability: • correlation between QoL and RDP interventions • partecipation and communication of evaluation process

  15. A comparison among approaches

  16. Conclusions and reflections The evaluation is contributing to set a conceptual framework in the domain of the QoL in rural areas Need for an enlargement, in terms features, of different dimensions of QoL in rural areas to be investigated Move beyond the measure-based evaluation approach towards a thematic or/and territorial approach Need for complement quantitative with qualitative analysis Move to more-in-depth analysis and participatory evaluations which involve local stakeholders Emerging need for discussion among evaluators and policy-makers on the meaning of QoL in rural areas and to investigate the most appropriate measurement techniques.

  17. Thank you for the attention pierangeli@inea.it

More Related