impact assessment of an intervention 'improved pig …sbear.in/v2(4)_01.pdf · 2017-11-06 ·...

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIO-RESOURCE, ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES (IJBEAS) Vol. 2(4) :391-404, 2016

www.sbear.in // ISSN 2454-3551

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF AN INTERVENTION 'IMPROVED PIG FARMING

TECHNOLOGY' FOR LIVELIHOOD IMPROVEMENT OF RURAL POOR AT DHALAI

DISTRICT, TRIPURA.

Ajit Kumar Roy

Ex. National Consultant (IA), NAIP, Pusa, New Delhi

*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Received: August 2016 Revised accepted: September 2016

ABSTRACT

Impact assessment is the process of identifying the anticipated or actual impacts of a

development intervention, on social, economic and environmental factors. An impact

assessment study was carried out at Ambassa,Balaram and Morachera clusters of Dhalai

district, Tripura during 2013 under NAIP project to evaluate and validate indigenous

'Improved Pig Farming Technology' (intervention) for enhancing production, profitability and

competitiveness in agro ecosystem of disadvantageous areas of NEH region.Ex-post design

covering both qualitative and quantitative data through random sampling and purposive

selection method was taken for collection of Primary data for both treated and control groups

of household farmers respectively. Primary data of fifty samples covering the above

intervention are analysed for components of partial budgeting parameters. Net income from

unit area was Rs.18515 for treated compared to Rs 4162 from control. B/C ratio of Treated:

Control is worked out to be 0.66:0.28. Partial budgeting parameters like estimated costs,

returns, net income and profit are found favourable for the Intervened Technology compared

to the existing farming practices. The impact of Pig rearing Technology can be guessed from

the fact that the productivity, employment generation and income has increased considerably.

Livelihood opportunities have also increased in the area. Beneficiaries and family members

are fully engaged in pig rearing/farming, marketing and associated activities. Assessment

criteria like Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact and Sustainability for the

Intervention are discussed in details. Finally, based on economic performance and feedback

from various stakeholders it is recommended that to continue the programme for long term

social and economic benefits.

Keywords: Impact Assessment, Partial Budgeting, Interventions, Pig Rearing,

Livelihood, Sustainability

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is considered as the mainstay of a majority of people in India. It contributes around 14 per

cent to the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country. The livestock sector in India contributes to

nearly 32% of total agricultural output. India with 2.3% share of global geographical area supports

nearly 20% of the livestock population of the World. The present production of meat in India is

estimated at 6.27 million tons in 2010 (FAO, 2012), which is 2.21% of the world's meat production.

The contribution of meat from buffalo is about 23.33%, while cattle contributes about 17.34%, sheep

4.61%, goat 9.36%, pig 5.31%, poultry 36.68% and other species 3.37%. The meat production has

increased from 764,000 tonnes in 1970-71 to 6.27 million tons in 2010. The compounded average

growth rate (CAGR) during the last two decades works out to be 4.5%. State-wise Production of Pork

in India are Arunachal Pradesh 3.3; Assam 13; Manipur 7.4; Meghalaya10 ; Mizoram 5.3;

Nagaland 31 and Tripura 7.6 metric tons. Pork consumption is negligible in India, with the exception

of the north-east while it is a major item elsewhere. The total world consumption of meat is estimated

to be of the order of 240 million tons per annum and India’s share of consumption is only 2.2%.The

Int. J. Bio-res. Env. Agril. Sci., December 2016

392

eight states in North East India (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram,

Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura) are ethnically and culturally akin to South East Asia and are amongst

the poorest in India. For the majority tribal population, livestock keeping especially pig keeping is

integral to their way of life in the NE Region. There is a growing demand for pork due to increasing

per capita income, urbanization and changes in lifestyle and food habits. Much of this demand is met

from imports from other states in India and from Myanmar. North East India has much higher pork

consumption that the rest of the country. Of these states, Nagaland has the highest per capita

consumption. The tribal population in particular appears to consume more pork on average than other

groups. Traders in both Assam and Nagaland reported that the demand for pork was increasing along

with prices. Commercial pig farming in India for meat production is one of the profitable ventures.

Pig breeding takes off in India’s northeast, which produces 25% of the country’s pigs and consumes

50% of the country’s pork.

In the NAIP project farmers were provided with input in the form of piglet and pig shed for rearing of

pigs as part of intervention (Fig.1). The purpose of this Impact Assessment is to assess the impact of

Interventions extended by organizations like ICAR, SAU, NGO, with the financial support of PIU,

NAIP, ICAR, New Delhi. An important intervention 'Scientific Pig rearing' was selected spread over

the states of Tripura. NAIP-PIU intends to evaluate and assess the impact of the sub-project

'Scientific Pig Rearing’ in meeting the objectives for which it was conceptualized based on the basic

parameters of effectiveness, efficiency, results/impact and sustainability. Ghungroo – Pigs of this

breed are found to have local consumer preferences are provided to the farmers. Besides an exotic

high yielding variety 'Hampshire' – re also provided to farmers as an input as part of intervention.

Animals are black with white strip across forelegs to shoulder. Typical characteristics include small

and erect ears, small and compact body. Sows have good mothering ability.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

In its broadest sense, impact assessment is the process of identifying the anticipated or actual impacts

of a development intervention, on those social, economic and environmental factors which the

intervention is designed to affect or may inadvertently affect. It may take place before approval of an

intervention (ex ante), after completion (ex post), or at any stage in between. Ex ante assessment

forecasts potential impacts as part of the planning, design and approval of an intervention. Ex post

assessment identifies actual impacts during and after implementation, to enable corrective action to be

taken if necessary, and to provide information for improving the design of future interventions. In line

with the evaluation criteria outlined in International manuals, the key evaluation criteria applied will

include Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Rural poverty impact, Sustainability, Pro-poor

innovation and scaling up, Gender equality and women’s empowerment.

Partial Budgeting

Partial budgeting is a planning and decision-making framework used to compare the costs and

benefits of alternatives faced by a farm business. It focuses only on the changes in income and

expenses that would result from implementing a specific alternative. In a nutshell, Partial Budgeting

allows one to get a better handle on how a decision will affect the profitability of the enterprise, and

ultimately the profitability of the farm itself. The partial budget framework can be used to analyze a

number of important farm decisions, including adopting a new technology.

There are seven common components to a partial budget: increased income, reduced cost, reduced

income, increased costs, total of positive effects (increased income and reduced cost), total of

negative effects (reduced income and increased costs),and net change (positive minus negative

effects).


393

Economic Impact Assessment

i) Benefit-Cost Analysis ii) Cost Effectiveness Analysis iii) Financial Analysis iv) Fiscal Impact

Analysis v) Economic Impact Analysis vi) Social Impact Analysis.

Fig. 1a. Piglet-Yorkshire variety

Fig. 1b. A progressive farmer with pigs

Fig. 1c. Piglet-Ghungro variety

Fig. 1d. Halhuli market, Dhalai,Tripura

Fig. 1. Intervention: Piglet(Ghungro & Yorkshire variety) and pig shed provided by NAIP, ICAR &

Dhalai Zilla Parisad, Ambasa, Dhalai,Tripura

Methodology for the Present Impact Assessment Household Survey

Based on reviewing a number of specific International and National best practice, latest literature on

Impact assessment specifically on livelihood presenting overall information related to development of

survey instrument, analysis tools & techniques and data presentation are taken up.

Experimental Design

In the present impact assessment study Ex Post design was adopted with provision for comparison

between Intervened and control group of households. Both qualitative and quantitative data through

random sampling and purposive selection method is taken for collection of Primary data for both

treated and control groups of household farmers respectively.

Survey Instrument /Assessment Tools for Household Survey

After thorough discussion it was decided that the survey instrument designed by PWC to be taken up

for field data collection that was approved in the meeting at PIU,NAIP on 21st January,2014.PWC

questionnaire is designed mainly for financial impact assessment was administered for primary data

collection from the field.


394

Sample Size Selection

Thirty samples of beneficiary farmers and twenty samples of control group farmers are covered for

primary HH data collection for the intervention, from the frame of beneficiary farmer’s household,

sample was be selected at random to avoid bias. In case of non-beneficiary farmers (control)

purposive sample method is resorted to because of non availability of sampling frame.

Primary and secondary sources of data collection

Household survey, Market visits, Field Observations, Key informants Interview and Transect walk

besides Existing literature of best practice of IA survey/study.

Overall Field Observation

Financial data in prescribed questionnaire aiming Partial Budgeting of Interventions collected to

capture change in profit particularly Household assets, sources of income and livelihoods,

diversification of input cost, labour cost, employment generation, production etc were emphasised for

field data collection. Besides few qualitative parameters like income, profit, adoption, sustaiability,

etc., are also covered. Key informant Interview/farmers' meet/transect walk were also organised for

each intervention taken up at each site to take stock of the present scenario and validation. Details of

Primary data collected from the selected interventions covering Dhalai district of Tripura (Pig

Rearing(adopted-30 samples and control-20 samples)

Statistical Analysis, Tabulation and Presentation of Data

Tabulation and presentation of descriptive statistics of the economic indicators/parameters is being

done and presented,. Graphical presentation of salient features is being taken care of for easy

comprehension and analysis is done using software package like SPSS and MS Excel. Descriptive

statistics of partial budgeting parameters for the Interventions is presented.

Area of Operation/Geographical Coverage

Ambassa, Balaram and Morachera clusters of Dhalai district, Tripura

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Financial Analysis and Partial Budgeting

Partial budgeting also known as marginal analysis is a management tool that can compare the costs

and returns that are affected by a potential change in an intervention. It is especially useful in

evaluating budgets that involve small, specific, and limited changes within an intervention by helping

to determine the profitability of that change. The partial budget can be divided into three main

sections: (I) costs, (II) benefits, and (III) analysis. The analysis section includes net change in profits

and a break-even analysis also known as benefit/cost ratio. The possible changes that can occur in an

intervention fall into four categories. These categories are added returns, reduced returns, added costs,

and reduced costs. Added costs and reduced returns compose the cost section of the partial budget.

They represent the negative effects of a proposed change. Added returns and reduced costs fall into

the benefits section of the partial budget and are the positive effects of a proposed change in the

business.

The analysis section of the partial budget contains both net change in profits and benefit/cost

ratio analysis. In this section as part of partial budgeting an attempt has been made to present and

discuss comparative figures of the socio-economic status of farm households (adopted-30 & control

20) in terms of basic production assets, Area under various activities, Employment Generation, Cost

of Cultivation (in Rs. / Acre), Income ( Rs. / Acre) and cost benefit ratio. Financial impact analysis


395

based on primary data collected byA.K.Roy, National Consultant (IA), East & N.E.Region, India as

part of TOR with NAIP.

Table 1. Ownership of Basic Production Asset (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)

Field Treated Control Comparison

Land (owned/leased)

Total (acre) 0.7747 1.61036

Animal/livestock

Type of animal/livestock Pig Pig

No. of animal/livestock 2.53 1.83

Cropping Pattern

It reveals from the survey data of households that there is a distinct difference between the cropping

pattern of adopted /treated households for the intervention Scientific Pig Rearing at the Dhalai

District, Tripura compared to those in the Control farmers selected from the neighbouring areas. As a

result of intervention in the form of Pig sheds and piglets to beneficiaries, farmers are resorting to

integrated farming also involving pig cum fish that is a proven technology. This practice resulted in

high production from unit area accruing higher output. Therefore, it is attempted to depict the input,

output, components of cost of cultivation, components of input cost, output in the form of table and

graphs for easy understanding of the differences between treated and control farmers.

Fig. 2. Bar Charts : Yield Comparison; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing, Dhalai, Tripura

Yield Comparison

In the above figure two charts are there one showing piglet production and the other one with

pigmeat.Through NAIP intervention on an average from a treated one piglet and pig meat were 7.82

nos. and 273.27kg/unit as against 11706kg/unit only(Fig.2). It is well that the smallholder livestock

production systems improve livelihood and food security for the poorest people. In addition to

providing protein for human consumption, pigs are often one of the main sources of cash income in

rural areas and provide manure for cropping. Salient features of pig farming is that Pig farming has

7.82

0 0

2

4

6

8

10

Treated Control

Nu

mb

er

Pig Rearing

Yield Comparision

Pigglet

273.27

117.06

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Treated Control

Kg.

Pig Rearing

Yield Comparision

Pigglet meat


396

been adopted mostly by small and landless farmers and in tribal areas. It is low-external input activity

relying mainly upon women’s labour for rearing.

Table 2. Employment Generation (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)


Employment Generation Additional man days

generated

Total man days (for male labour) 40.64 32.18 8.47

Total man days (for female labour) 41.17 25.18 15.99

Total Man days (male+female) 81.81 57.35 24.46

Percentage of women employment 50.32 43.90 6.42

Fig. 3. Comparison on Employment Generation; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing, District

Dhalai, Tripura

Employment Generation

Pig rearing is a labour intensive enterprise therefore employment generation was also higher for

male, female and total in the treated plots to the extent of 1.26,1.63 and 1.46 times respectively

compared to those generated in the control group (Table 2).

40.64

32.17

41.16

25.18

81.8

57.35

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Treated Control

Man

day

s

Pig Farming

Employment Generation

Male (Mandays) Female (Mandays Total Mandays


397

Table 3. Cost of Cultivation (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)


Average Labour cost (in Rs.) 18571.67 11197.5 7374.17

Average Farm power cost (in Rs.) 0 0 0

Material Inputs cost (in Rs.) 10220.0 3833.4 6386.6

Other associated cost (in Rs.) 0 0 0

Total capital/long term investment

per year (in Rs.) 1291.70 0 1291.67

Other cost if any (in Rs.) 0 0 0

Total cost of cultivation (in Rs./

unit) without support from

NAIP

30083.33 15030.9 15052.43

Average support provided in

Capital cost/long term investment

(in Rs.)

1291.67 N.A.

Total support provided from

project (in Rs.) 1291.67 N.A.

Actual cost of cultivation borne

by farmer (in Rs/Acre) 28791.67 15030.9 13760.77

Fig. 4. Bar chart for Comparative Cost of Cultivation; Intervention: Pig Farming, District

Dhalai, Tripura

18571.67

11197.5 10220

3833.4

1291.67 0

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

20000

Treated Control

Rs.

Pig Farming

Cost of Cultivation

Labour Cost Material Input Cost Capital Investment


398

Cost of Cultivation

Cost of cultivation was observed Rs.30083 in treated plots compared to Rs.15031/unit incurred in the

control plots. Component wise break up of cost of cultivation within treated plots it is seen that on an

average labour cost constituted 62% followed by material input cost (26%), and capital investment

(4%) whereas cost of cultivation for control plots were on an average are found labour (74%), and

material input (26%) (Fig. 4). Further partitioning of input cost for treated group exhibits that the

highest cost of cultivation was borne toward Feed (51%) followed by piglet (31%), maintenance

(18%) but in case of Control group highest was on account of piglet (64%) followed by feed (36%).

(Fig. 4).It is interesting to note that in the intervened one NAIP provided pig shed that requires

maintenance by way of washing where as in the control one pigs are reared in open therefore no

maintenance cost.

Fig. 5. Pie-Chart showing Comparative Cost of Cultivation; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing,

District Dhalai, Tripura

Fig. 6. Pie-Chart showing Comparative Cost of Material Input; Intervention: Scientific Pig Rearing,

District Dhalai, Tripura

Average Labour

cost 62%

Material Inputs

cost 34%

Capital/ long term

investment 4%

Treated (Rs.)

Average Labour

cost 74%

Material Inputs cost 26%

Capital/ long term

investment 0%

Control (Rs.)

Pigglet Cost 31%

Feed Cost 51%

Livestock Mainten

ance Cost 18%

Treated (Rs.)

Pigglet Cost 64%

Feed Cost 36%

Livestock Mainten

ance Cost 0%

Control (Rs.)


399

Table 4. Income (Intervention: Scientific Pig farming)


Income from crop (in Rs./Acre) 0 0 0

Income from vegetable (in

Rs./Acre) 0 0 0

Income from straw (in Rs./ Acre) 0 0

Income from Fishery (in

Rs./Acre) 0 0 0

Income from piglets 48398.33 19192.65 29205.69

Income from Livestock 200 0 200

Gross Income generated (in

Rs./acre) 48598.33 19192.65 29405.69

Subtract total cost of cultivation

without support from NAIP (in

Rs.)

30083.33 15030.90 15052.43

Net Income (in Rs.) without

support from NAIP 18515.00 4161.75 14353.25

Add support provided from NAIP

(Rs.) 1291.67 N.A.

Net Income (in Rs.) with

support from NAIP 19806.67 4161.75 15644.92

Benefit cost ratio * 0.66 0.28

Profit from competing

crop/agro-enterprise (in Rs.) 20846.30 6154.58

*Net Income / Total cost of cultivation; Source: Primary data collection by National Consultant

(IA) for East & NE Region


400

Fig . 7. Comparison of Income; Intervention: Pig Farming, District Dhalai, Tripura

Income

Net income from unit area was Rs.18515 for treated compared to Rs 4162 from control. B/C ratio of

Treated: Control (0.66:0.28).These ratios are far below threshold level proving that Pig rearing is not

a commercially viable option for Dhalai district of Tripura. Cost benefit ratios for both treated and

control groups are below one. That means the venture is not economically viable (Table 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Relevance

The Intervention of Pig Rearing by NAIP is relevant as the activities and outputs of the programme

consistent with the intended impacts and effects as envisaged in objective of the programme.

Effectiveness

The Intervention is found to be effective also as this intervention attained its objectives of creating

employment and livelihood opportunities of marginal farmers of Backward Dhalai dist. of Tripura.

Efficiency

Farmers adopting Pig rearing technology are observed accrued higher output compared to that

achieved in control group. From B/C ratio also it is clear that the technology is cost- efficient.

Sustainability

Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue

after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially

sustainable. In search of the fact that to what extent did the benefits of the intervention likely to

continue after donor funding ceased, it is evident that this capital intensive intervention /technology

(Pig hutment) if once constructed it will remain so and can be used for at least 5-7 years without

much maintenance. Interviewing cross section of adopted/non-adopted/control farmers under the

Intervention got an impression that the farmers are going to continue with the technology even after

the funding is discontinued with the end of the project. It is also observed that a lot of non

16545

0

42332

19192.65

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Treated Control

Rs.

Pig Farming

Income

Pigglet Pigglet meat


401

beneficiaries are also interested to adopt the technology but unable to do so because of paucity of fund

by the poor and marginal farmers. Some well to do farmers of the area are reported to have invested

money and adopted the technology for higher productivity and return in Moracherra and Balaram

areas of Dhalai dist. Tripura.

Impact

Impact is known as the positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention,

directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting

from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The

examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the

positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial

conditions. The impact of Pig rearing Technology can be guessed from the fact that the productivity,

emplyment generation, income has increased considerably. Livelihood opportunities have also

increased in the area. Beneficiaries and family members are fully engaged in pig rearing/farming,

marketing and associated activities. Pigs are potential source of animal proteins and avenues for

additional income and employment that can improve the livelihood in a sustainable manner in the

study areas.

.

RECCOMENDATIONS

Partial budgeting parameters like estimated costs, returns and net income are found higher for

Scientific Pig Rearing compared to the existing pig farming practices. Therefore based on financial

performance as well as interaction with stakeholders it is recommended that i) Further support in

terms of pig shed construction and quality piglet ii) Regular supply of balanced pig feed iii) Provision

for small pumps for daily washing of pig shed iv) Further adoption of neighbouring farmers v)

Regular interaction with the beneficiaries.

Given its prospects, scientific pig farming has proved of its potential to have a positive impact on the

livelihood of millions of resource poor, under-privileged, landless and marginal tribal farmers of

Dhalai district of Tripura.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is grateful to NAIP for offering opportunity to carry out the Impact Assessment study.

Thanks are due to PI, Co-PI, RA's, enumerators and central/state govt. officials for rendering help during

primary field data collection at different locations of the State of Tripur, India.


402

SELECTED REFERENCES

ACF Food Security and Livelihoods Assessment Guideline . April 2010. Editing: ACF International,

Printed: Joseph Ferruzzi Associates, Inc.

ADB. 2006. Impact Evaluation—Methodological and Operational Issues, Economics and Research

Department, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

Annual report. 2012-13. NAIP, ICAR, krishi Bhawan, New Delhi-110 012.

Ashley, C. and Hussein, K. 2000. Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment:

Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa, Overseas Development

Institute, Portland House, Stag Place, London, SW1E 5DP, UK.

Attanasio, O. P., Meghir, C. and Szekely, M. 2004. ‘Using Randomised Experiments and Structural

Models for Scaling up: Evidence from PROGRESA Evaluation’, in F. Bourguignon and B.

Pleskovic (Eds) Accelerating Development. Annual World Bank Conference on

Development Economics. Washington, DC: World Bank and OUP.

Baker, J. 2000. Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for

Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Baker, J. L. 2000. Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty, The World Bank,

Washington, D.C.

Balthasar, A. and Rieder, S. 2000. Learning from Evaluations. Evaluation, 6(3): 245-260.

Bamberger, M. 2000. Opportunities and challenges for integrating quantitative and Qualitative

research. In: M. Bamberger (ed.) Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Research in

Development Projects, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Bamberger, M. 2006. Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data

Constraints. Washington. DC: World Bank.

Bamberger, M. 2006. Conducting Quality Impact Evaluations under Budget, Time and Data

Constraints, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Bamberger, M., and White, H. 2007. Using strong evaluation designs in developing Countries:

Experience and challenges. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 4(8): 58–73.

Bamberger, M., Rugh, J and Mabry, L. 2006. Real-World Evaluation Working Under Budget, Time,

Data, and Political Constraints, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bird, K. 2002. Impact Assessment: An Overview. London, UK: ODI.

Duflo, E. and Kremer, M. 2003. Use of Randomization in the Evaluation of Development

Effectiveness'. Paper presented at the World Bank OED Conference on Evaluation and

Development Effectiveness, Washington, DC, 15-16 July.

Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. 2001. Outcome Mapping: Building learning and reflection into

development programs. Ottowa: IDRC.


403

Elbers, C., Gunning, J. and Hoop, K. 2008. Assessing Sector-wide Programs with Statistical Impact

Evaluation: A Methodological Proposal’ World Development, 20(10).

European Evaluation Society (EES). 2007. The Importance of a Methodologically Diverse Approach

to Impact Evaluation – Specifically with Respect to Development Aid and Development

Interventions. EES Statement. Nijkerk, Netherlands: EES secretariat.

Ezemenari, K., Rudqvist, A. and Subbarao, K. 1999. Impact Evaluation: A Note on Concepts and

Methods. World Bank Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network.

Fiszbein, A. 2006. Development Impact Evaluation: New Trends and Challenges. Evidence and

Policy, 2(3): 385-393.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/ or the CD-ROM may be made available upon request from the

UN Statistics Division [email protected].

Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank (IEG) .2006. Impact Evaluation: An overview and

some issues for discussion. OECD DAC.

Jones, N., Jones, H., Steer, L. and Datta, A. 2009. Improving impact evaluation production and use.

Overseas Development Institute, 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE7 1JD.

National Household Survey Capability Programme: Sampling Frames and Sample Designs for

Integrated Household Survey Programmes, Preliminary Version (DP/UN/INT-84-014/5E),

New York, 1986.

Prowse, M. 2008. Impact Evaluations and Interventions to address Climate Change. Scoping Study

commissioned by the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation.

Raitzer, D. and Winkel, K. 2005. Donor Demands and Uses for Evidence of Research Impact: The

Case of CGIAR. Washington, DC: CGIAR Science Council.

Ravallion, M. 2008. Evaluation in the Practice of Development. Policy Research Working Paper

4547.Washington, DC: World Bank.

Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and the Mexican Progresa Anti-Poverty and Human Resource

Investment Conditional Cash Transfer Program. Impact Assessment Discussion Paper 27.

Washington, DC: IFPRI.

Riddell, R. 2008. Measuring Impact: The Global and Irish Aid Programme. Final report to the Irish

Aid Advisory Board.

Roy, A. K. 2010. Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Technologies and Developmental Activities

in Agriculture, Fisheries and Allied Fields. New India Publishing Agency.101 Vikas Surya

Plaza, Pitampura, New Delhi.xiv+510p (ISBN: 978-93-8023540-0)

Roy, A. K. 2010. Quantitative methods for Social Science Research. Issues and Tools for Social

Sciences Research. (Kathia et al. eds.), CIFRI, Barrackpore. pp: 391-408.

Roy, A. K. 2010. A Study On Statistical Methods for Impact Assessment of Freshwater Aquaculture

with Particular Reference to Kolleru Lake, Summer School Proc.,WBUF&AS,Kolkata.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/hhsurveys/

mailto:[email protected]


404

Roy, A. K. 2010. Methods, Tools and Techniques for Evaluation, Monitoring and Impact Assessment

of Development Programme. In : Evaluation and Impact Assessment of Technologies and

Developmental Activities in Agriculture, Fisheries and Allied Fields, NIPA, New Delhi

(Roy, A. K eds.), pp:1-76.

Subrahmanyam, S., Hanumantha Rao, K. and Aparna, P. 2010. Planning and Implementation of

National Rural employment Guarantee Scheme in Orissa: A Process Study. National

Institute of Rural Development, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad - 500 030.

Science Council. 2006c. Impact Assessment of Policy-Oriented Research in the CGIAR: A Scoping

Study Report. CGIAR Science Council. Science Council (2006d) ‘Spillover Increases

Returns to Sorghum Genetic Enhancement’. CGIAR, Science Council Brief 4.

Sherman, L. W. and Strang, H. 2004a. Experimental Ethnography: The Marriage of Qualitative and

Quantitative Research. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

595(1):170-189.

Singer, U. 2013. Livelihoods and Resource Management Survey on the Mekong between

LouangPhabang and Vientiane Cities, Lao PDR. Vientiane, Lao PDR: IUCN. 122pp.

Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. FID, UK.

Standing Panel on Impact Assessment. Science Council. 2006e. Policy-Oriented Research in the

CGIAR. CGIAR Science Council Brief 18.

The World Economic and Social Survey. 2013. Sustainable Development Challenges Department of

Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat (UN/DESA),

E/2013/50/Rev1 ST/ESA/344.

United Nations. 2011a. The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011. Sales No. E.11.I.10.

WORLD BANK (Editor) (n.y.): Methodology for transect walk. Washington, DC: World Bank.

www.worldbank.org/ieg/nonie

http://www.sswm.info/library/3089

impact assessment of an intervention 'improved pig …sbear.in/v2(4)_01.pdf · 2017-11-06 ·...

Documents