Home⇛Annals of Tropical Research⇛vol. 44 no. 2 (2022)

Social impacts of coconet enterprise on smallholder coconut farming family: The case of Panaon Island Farmers Federation Inc. in the Philippines

Henry Y. Goltiano | Feliciano G. Sinon

 

Abstract:

This study looked into the social impacts of the cocotwine-coconet-making enterprise of the Panaon Island Farmers Federation, Inc. The study followed the constructivist research approach. Results showed that the enterprise had positive and negative impacts on PIFFI members, their families, PIFFI as an organization, their communities and their environment. Most impacts were positive, including acquisition of new knowledge and skills, improved economic productivity and income, changed values, built courage and confidence to take investment risk, molded financial discipline, strengthened family bond, reinforced community cohesion and improved the environment, among others. As a farmers organization, PIFFI demonstrated interest, capability ' and willingness to sacrifice to make its livelihood enterprise succeed. Smallholder coconut farmers organizations, like PIFFI, that demonstrate such characteristics deserve government assistance to enable them to optimize positive impacts of the livelihood enterprises that they are engaged in.



References:

  1. Abu Bakar A & Osman MM. 2015. Social Impact Assessment: How do the public help and why do they matter? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 170:70-77. DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.016
  2. Ahmad A. 2009. Social impact assessment in Malaysia. Malaysian Association of Social Impact Assessment, Shah Alam, Malaysia
  3. Aledo A, Garcia-Andreu & Pinese J. 2015. Using causal maps to support ex-post assessment of social impacts of dams. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 55:84-97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195925515000633
  4. Alouw JC and Wulandari S. 2020. Present status and outlook of coconut development in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. DOI:10.1088/1755-1315/418/1/012035
  5. Ani PA and Aquino A. 2016. The long climb towards achieving the promises of the Tree of Life: A review of the Philippine coconut levy fund policies. FFTCAgricultural Policy Articles 2016-01-28. http://ap.fftc.agnet.org/ap_db.php?id=577&print=1
  6. Aragon C. 2000. Coconut program area research planning and prioritization, Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion Paper Series No. 2000-31, Makati City, Philippines. https://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0031.pdf 
  7. Arancon RN Jr. 1997. Asia-Pacific forestry sector outlook: Focus on coconut wood. Working Paper No. APFSOS/WP/23 in Working Paper Series on Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome
  8. Arce-Gomez A, Donovan JD & Bedggood RE. 2015. Social impact assessments: Developing a consolidated conceptual framework. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,  50:85-94.https://www.academia.edu/10253414/Social_impact_assessments_Developing_a_conso lidated_conceptual_framework
  9. Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission (APFC). 2008. Forestry in a changing world: The outlook for the Asia-Pacific Forest Sector, Proceedings of the 22nd Session of the Asia- Pacific Forestry Commission, 21-25 April 2008, Hanoi, Vietnam. https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/8868dd9a-3709-5121-b4d6-22d6312e0868
  10. Bai Y, Leib AY, Puri AM, Whitney D, Peng K. 2015. Gender differences in crowd perception.                                    Frontiers                  in                 Psychology                 6,1300:1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01300
  11. Baker-Medard M, Gantt C & White ER. 2021. Classed conservation: Socio- economicdrivers of participation in marine resource management. Environmental Science         and    Policy  124:156-162. https://quantmarineecolab.github.io/pdfs/2021_BakerMedard_etal_EnvSciPol.pdf
  12. Batugal P. 2005. Introduction. In Batugal P and Oliver J (eds) Poverty reduction in coconut growing communities, Volume III, Project Achievements and Impact (p. vi). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute-Regional Office for Asia, the Pacific and Oceania, Serdang,  Selangor                                   Danil                          Ehsan,                 Malaysia. http://cogentnetwork.org/oldsite/images/publications/PRCGC_Vol3_part1.pdf
  13. Becker DR, Harris CC, Nielsen EA & McLaughlin WJ. 2004. A comparison of a technical and a participatory application of social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22(3):177-189. DOI:10.3152/147154604781765932
  14. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR & Weimer DL. 2001. Cost-benefit analysis: Concepts and practice. Upper Saddle River, Prentice Hall: New Jersey, USA
  15. Burdge RJ. 2002. Why is social impact assessment the orphan of the assessment process? Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(1):3-9. DOI:10.3152/147154602781766799
  16. Burdge RJ. 2012.The practice of social impact assessment background. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 21(2):84-88. DOI:10.3152/147154603781766356
  17. Byrne M and Willis P. 2005. Irish secondary students’ perceptions of the work of an accountant and the accounting profession. Accounting Education 14(4):367-381. https://doi.org/10.1080/06939280500346003
  18. Carranza DT. 2015. Agrarian reform and the difficult road to peace in the Philippine countryside. Report for the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (NOREF), December   2015.   Available   at   https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/Carranza_NOREF_Agrarian%20reform%20and%20the%20difficult%20road% 20to%20peace%20in%20the%20Philippine%20countryside_Dec2015_FINAL.pdf 
  19. Castillo MB & Ani PAB. 2010. The Philippine coconut industry: Status, policies and strategic directions for development. Food and Fertilizer Technology Center for the Asian and Pacific Region. Available at https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/1382
  20. Davis JR. 2003. The rural non-farm economy, livelihoods and their diversification: Issues and options (Natural Resources Institute Report No. 2753 on Rural Non-Farm Economy). UK Department for International Development’s (DFID) Rural Livelihoods Department. Available at https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42389803.pdf
  21. Department of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines (DAR). 2006, September 05. Memorandum Circular No. 03, Series of 2006: Intensified rural development through agrarian                      reform        communities        (ARCs)        Connectivity.        Available        at https://media.dar.gov.ph/source/2019/07/11/2006-mc-3-intensified-rural-development- through-agrarian-reform-communities-arcs-connectivity.pdf
  22. Department of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines (DAR). 2006a, October 25. Memorandum Circular 06, Series of 2006: Revised implementing policies and guidelines on the “ARB Agribusiness Entrepreneurship Development Program (AREDP).” Available at       https://media.dar.gov.ph/source/2019/07/31/mc06-06-revised-implementing-policies- and-guidelines-on-the-arb-agribusiness-entrepreneurship-development-program- aredp.pdf
  23. Department of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines (DAR). 2009, January 30. Memorandum Circular 02, Series of 2009: Addendum to Memorandum Circular No. 9 Series of                    2007 “Harmonizing the Implementation of Agribusiness Development Prorams                      and            Initiatives         in         the         Department”.         Available         at https://media.dar.gov.ph/source/2019/05/27/mc2-09-addendum-to-memorandum- circular-no-9-series-of-2009-harmonizing-the-implementation-of-agribusiness- development-programs-and-initiatives-in-the-department.pdf
  24. Department of Public Works and Highways of the Philippines (DPWH). 2008, May 16, 2008. Department Order No. 28: DPWH Standard Specifications for BY Bio-Engineering Products                           and             Solutions,             Item            519.             Available             at https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/sites/default/files/issuances/DO_041_S2010.pdf
  25. Department of Public Works and Highways of the Philippines (DPWH). 2009, December 14. Department Order No. 62: Reiterating D. O. Nos. 28 and 29, both Series of 2008, re: DPWH Standard Specifications for BY Bio-EngineeringProducts and Solutions (Item 519) and Coconut Bio-Engineering Solutions (Item 518), respectively. https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/sites/default/files/issuances/DO_041_S2010.pdf
  26. Department of Public Works and Highways of the Philippines (DPWH). 2010, August 31. Department Order No. 41: Prescribing the Use of Coconut Bio-Engineering Technology Solutions                                                 in                                  DPWH                                 Projects. https://www.dpwh.gov.ph/dpwh/sites/default/files/issuances/DO_041_S2010.pdf 
  27. Department for International Development of UK (DFID). 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance                                                                                                                                    sheets.https://www.livelihoodscentre.org/documents/114097690/114438878/Sustainable+livelih oods+guidance+sheets.pdf/594e5ea6-99a9-2a4e-f288- cbb4ae4bea8b?t=1569512091877
  28. Doolittle PE and Hicks D. 2003. Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory and Research in Social Education 31(1):72-104
  29. EYGM Limited. 2017. In harmony: family cohesion and business profitability. Ernst & Young Global Limited UK and Cox Family Enterprise Center, Coles College of Business, Kennesaw                                     State                    University,                    Georgia,                    USA. https://coles.kennesaw.edu/familybusiness/docs/ey-family-business-cohesion- profitability.pdf
  30. Fontana A & Frey JH. 2000. The interview from structured questions to negotiated text in Denzin NK & Lincoln YS (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (2nd edn), pp 645-72. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
  31. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). 2019. Production of Coconuts: Top 10 Producers. Available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC/visualized
  32. Fuggini C, Zangani D, Wosniok A, Krebber K, Franitza P, Gabino L & Weigand F. 2016. Innovative approach in the use of geotextiles for failures prevention in railway embankments. Transportation Research Procedia 14:1875-1883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.154
  33. Fujii M. 2005. Livelihood change in a Philippine coconut farming village: A case study in Laguna                        Province.           African           Study           Monographs           29:115-124. https://doi.org/10.14989/68439
  34. Gall MD, Gall JP & Borg WR. 2003. Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). A & B Publications, Boston, MA
  35. Garcia-Barrios L, Galvan-Miyoshi YM, Valdiviso-Perez IA, Masera OR, Bocco G & Vandermeer J. 2009. Neotropical forest conservation, agricultural intensification and rural out-migration: The Mexican experience. BioScience 59:863-873. DOI:10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.8
  36. Gunetilleke N & Kenanayake D. 2004. Monetary poverty estimates in Sri Lanka: Selected Issues. Economics and Research Department, Asian Development Bank Working Paper No. 58. Available at https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28189/wp058.pdf
  37. Gurbuz, IB & Manaros M. 2019. Impact of coconut production on the environment and the problems faced by coconut producers in Lanao Del Norte Province, Philippines. Scientific Papers Series on Management, Economics and Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development 19(3)235-246
  38. Guriev S. 2018. Economic drivers of populism. American Economic Association Papers and Proceedings 108:200-203. https://doi.org/10.1257/pandp.20181123
  39. Hengky N, Rompas T & Darwis SN. 1998. Coconut breeding programme in Indonesia. In Batugal PA and Rao VR (eds.) Coconut breeding: Papers presented at the workshop on standardization of coconut breeding research techniques, 20-24 June 1994, Port Bouet, Cote      d’Ivoire.https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/bioversity/publications/Web_version/362/ch3.htm#bm1-Coconut%20breeding%20programme%20m%20Indonesia 
  40. Herr D, Blum J, Himes-Cornell A & Sutton-Grier A. 2019. An analysis of the potential positive and negative livelihood impacts of coastal carbon offset projects. J Environ Manage 1(235):463-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envman.2019.01.067
  41. Ikkatai Y, Minamizaki A, Kano K, Inoue A, McKay E & Yokoyama HM. 2020. Gender- biased public perception of STEM fields, focusing on the influence of egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles. Journal of Science Communication 19(01):A08. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19010208
  42. Juslen J. 1995. Social impact assessment: A look at Finnish experiences. Project Appraisal 10(3):163-170. DOI: 10.1080/02688867.1995.9726990
  43. Khan MZ, Era MD, Islam MA, Khatun R, Begum A & Billah SM. 2019. Effect of coconut peat on the growth and yield response of Ipomoea aquatica. American Journal of Plant Sciences 10:369-381. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2019.103027
  44. Krishnapillai MV, Young-Uhk S, Friday JB & Haase DL. 2020. Locally produced cocopeat growing media for container plant production. Tree Planters’ Notes 63(1):29-38. https://rngr.net/publications/tpn/63-1/locally-produced-cocopeat-growing-media-for- container-plant-production/at_download/file
  45. Kumar SN, Bai KVK, Rajagopal V & Aggarwal PK. 2009. Simulating coconut growth, development and yield with InfoCrop-coconut model. Tree Physiology 29(5):751. https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpp026
  46. Kvam R. Social impact assessment: Integrating social issues in development projects. Inter-American                Development        Bank,        Washington        DC.        Available        at https://publications.iadb.org/en/social-impact-assessment-integrating-social-issues- development-projects
  47. Li D, Chen H, Hui ECM, Yang H & Li Q. 2014. A methodology for ex-post assessment of social impacts of an affordable housing project. Habitat International 43:32-40. Available at https://www.infona.pl/resource/bwmeta1.element.elsevier-b1eadba6-8091-34d0-bb35- 2fdebfaf3d84
  48. McGrath S. 2002. Skills for development: a new approach to international cooperation in skills development? Journal of Vocational Education and Training 54(3)413-430. DO1: 10.1080/13636820200200207
  49. McNamara C. 1999. General guidelines for conducting interviews. Available at https://managementhelp.org/businessresearch/interviews.htm#anchor1404957
  50. Mergo T. 2016. The effects of international migration on migrant-source households: Evidence from Ethiopian diversity-visa lottery migrants. World Development 84:69-81. Available at https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:84:y:2016:i:c:p:69-81
  51. Montana PJ & Petit F. 2008. Motivating and managing Generation X and Y on the job while preparing for Z: A market-oriented approach. Journal of Business and Economics Research 6(8)35-39. Available at http://www.theibfr2.com/RePEc/:ibf/gjbres/gjbr-v2n2- 2008/GJBR-V2N2-2008-11.pdf 
  52. Neziri I and Kamberi I. 2016. Family cohesion and the efficacy of employees in the working environment. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 7(2):427-434. https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n2p427
  53. Oliveros NC. 2011. Technical report on the Boyongan-Bayugo deposit in Surigao Del Norte,                Mindanao,      Philippines.      Philex      Mining      Corportion.      Available      at http://www.philexmining.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Technical-Report-on-the- Boyongan-Bayugo-Deposit-.pdf
  54. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2002. What is impact assessment. Available at https://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/What-is-impact-assessment- OECDImpact.pdf
  55. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/International Network on Financial Education (OECD/INFE). 2016. International survey of adult financial literacy competencies. OECD, Paris. https://www.oecd.org/finance/oecd-infe-survey-adult- financial-literacy-competencies.htm
  56. Paranita ES and Agustinus M. 2020. The influence of investment motivation and financial literacy on interest in investing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research 169:299-303. https://repository.usahid.ac.id/649/1/21.%20The%20Influence%20of%20Investment.pdf
  57. Parkins N. 2010. Push and pull factors of migration. American Review of Political Economy 8(2)6-24.                            Available             at             https://sites.bemidjistate.edu/arpejournal/wp:- content/uploads/sites/2/2015/11/v8n2-parkins.pdf
  58. Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
  59. Purba YZW and Saleh W. 2018. An analysis of the feasibility of the copra business in the village of Pendowo Harjo, sub-district of Sungsang, Banyuasin Regency. Earth and Environmental Science 102. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/102/1/012068
  60. Rajendra IGNA and Sumariati DAR. 2018. The role of coconut plants in relations to disaster management in the tropical coastal regions. MATEC Web of Conferences 229,01012. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201822901012
  61. Ramsey L. 2008. Perceptions of family cohesion and achievement orientation among runaway adolescents: Understanding school performance (Senior honors thesis). Ohio State                                                                                                                               University.https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.572.1547&rep=rep1&type=pd f
  62. Ratnambal MJ & Nair MK. 1998. National coconut breeding programme in India. In Batugal PA and Rao VR (eds.), Coconut breeding: Papers presented at the workshop on standardization of coconut breeding research techniques, 20-24 June 1994, Port Bouet, Cote                         d’Ivoire.https://www.bioversityinternational.org/fileadmin/bioversity/publications/Web_version/36/ch2.htm#South%20Asia 
  63. Ravindranath DA. 2016. Potentials of coir as technical textile fibre. In Compilation of Seminar Papers, India International Coir Fair (IICF-2016), 15-18 July 2016, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India. Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises and the Coir Board, Government of India. http://coirboard.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/papers.p
  64. Reddy V and Sang-Arun J. 2011. Promoting coconut-based agro-ecosystem and efficient product utilization for augmenting on-farm income, improving quality of environment and conserving natural resources [Occasional paper]. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies,                                                                  Kanagawa,                                                 Japan. https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/workingpaper/en/2228/fullreport- kerala_coconut_corrected.pdf
  65. ReliefWeb. 2004 January 12. Report on the effects of landslide and flooding incidents in Visayas and Mindanao. https://reliefweb.int/report/philippines/report-effect-landslide-and- flooding-incidents-visayas-and-mindanao
  66. Renzaho AMN, Doh D, Mahumud RA, Galukande M & Kamara JK. 2020. Impact of the livelihoods and income fortification and socio-civic transformation project on the quality of life, wellbeing, self-esteem, and quality of neighborhood social environment among the youth in slum areas of in Kampala, Uganda. BMC Public Health 20 (1872):1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09868-y
  67. Rivera FI, Guamaccia PJ, Mulvaney-Day N, Lin JY, Torres M & Alegria M. 2008. Family cohesion and its relationship to psychological distress among Latino groups. Hispanic J of Behavioral Sciences 30(3):357-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986308318713
  68. Rossouw N and Malan S. 2007. The importance of theory in shaping social impact monitoring: Lessons from the Berg River Dam, South Africa. Impact Assessment Project Appraisal 25(4) 291-9. https://doi.org/10.3152/146155107X246305
  69. Sabates-Wheeler R and Waite M. 2003. Migration and social protection [Concept paper]. Sussex:                                 Institute                     of                    Development                    Studies. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d2140f0b6497400167c/WP-T2.pdf
  70. Saha S, Goswami R & Paul SK. 2018. Recursive male out-migration and the consequences at source: A systematic review with special reference to the left-behind women. Space and Culture 5(3)30-53. https://doi.org/10.20896/:saci.v5I3.289
  71. Sanou L, Savadogo P, Ezebilo EE & Thiombiano A. 2017. Drivers of farmers’ decisions to adopt agroforestry: Evidence from the Sudanian savanna zone, Burkina Faso. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 34(2): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000369
  72. Schmid O, Quiédeville S, Sterly S, Barjolle D & Midmore P. 2016. Research Impact Pathways: Comparative case study analysis [Synthesis report]. The Impact of Research on   EU                                     Agriculture                    (IMPRESA). https://orgprints.org/30965/1/IMPRESA_WP3_Research_Brief_-_Impact_Pathways.pdf
  73. Schulden JD, Painter TM, Song B, Valverde E, Borman MA, Monroe-Spencer K, Bautista G, Saleheen H, Voetsch AC & Heffelfinger JD. 2014. HIV testing histories and risk factors among migrants and recent immigrants who received rapid HIV testing from three community-based organizations. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health 16(5): 798-810. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-013-9811-y
  74. Shaffer L. 2013 November 5. Asia’s other aging population problem: coconuts. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2013/11/05/asias-other-aging-population-problem-coconuts.html
  75. Siddiqui T. 2003 June 22-24. Migration as a livelihood strategy for the poor: the Bangladesh case [Paper presentation]. Regional Conference on Migration Development Pro-Poor Policy Choices in Asia, Dhaka, Bangladesh. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08d16ed915d3cfd0017e2/WP-C1.pdf
  76. Somma M. 2021 September 30. Adaptations of the coconut tree. https://sciencing.com/trees-that-grow-in-saltwater-13429031.html
  77. Stolp A. 2003. Citizen values assessment. In Becker HA & Vanclay F (Eds), The international handbook of social impact assessment, 231-257. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781843768616.00027
  78. Sukphisit S. 2012, September 23. The ugly truth about coconuts. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/life/social-and-lifestyle/313603/the-ugly-truth-about- coconuts
  79. Tacio    HD.    2019    July    18.    Coconut:    major    export    crop   of    Filipino    farmers. https://pca.gov.ph/index.php/10-news/234-coconut-major-export-crop-of-filipino-farmers
  80. Tadem EC. 2015 June 5-6. Land grabbing, conflict and agrarian-environmental transformation: perspectives from East and Southeast Asia. Discussion Note No. 2, International Academic Conference, Chiang Mai University. http://www.iss.nL/fileadmin/ASSETS/iss/Research_and_projects/Research_networks/LD PI/CMCP_D2-Tadem.pdf
  81. Tur AA and Gomez JAD. 2016. Social Impact Assessment from a multidimensional paradigmatic perspective: Challenges and opportunities (pre-print version). Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.10.060
  82. Turner DW. 2010. Qualitative interview design: A practical guide to novice investigators.                                  The             Qualitative             Report             15(3):             754-760.http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol15/iss3/19
  83. Vanclay F. 1999. Social Impact Assessment. Contributing Paper for the Thematic Review for the Environmental and Social Assessment for Large Dams. World Commission on Dams,      Cape                                  Town,                       South                        Africa. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320196961_Social_Impact_Assessment_Contr ibuting_Paper_Prepared_for_Thematic_Review_V2_Environmental_and_Social_Assess ment_for_large_dams
  84. Vanclay F. 2003. International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment     and                                                         Project                   Appraisal                   21(1)5-12. https://doi.org. 10.3152/14715:4603781766491
  85. van Dam EG. 2002. Coir processing technologies: Improvement of drying, softening, bleaching and dyeing coir fibre/yarn and printing coir floor coverings. Technical Paper No.6, Food and Agriculture Organization-UN Rome Italy and the Common Fund for Commodities, the Netherlands. https://www.fao.org/3/y3612e/y3612e00.htm#contents
  86. van Schooten M, Vanclay F & Slootweg R. 2003. Conceptualizing social change processes and social impacts. In Becker and Vanclay (eds) The international handbook on social impact assessment: Conceptual and methodological advances, Chapter 6:74:91. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, England
  87. van Vliet J, de Groot LF, Rietveld P & Verburg PH. 2015. Manifestations and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 133:24-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001
  88. Walker T, Maredia M, Kelley T, La Rovere R, Templeton, Thiele G & Douthwaite B. 2008. Strategic guidance for ex post impact assessment of agricultural research. Report prepared for the Standing Panel on Impact Assessment, CGIAR Science Council. Science Council Secretariat, Rome, Italy
  89. World Bank. 2005. The investment climate, growth and poverty. In World Bank, World Development Report 2005: A better Investment Climate for Everyone, World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/0821356828_Chapter1
  90. Wu H, Yao C, Li C, Miao M, Zhong Y, Lu Y & Liu T. 2020. Review of application and innovation of geotextiles in geotechnical engineering. Materials 13(1774). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071774
  91. Yoon E and Tello S. 2009. Drivers of sustainable innovation: Exploratory views and corporate strategies. Seoul Journal of Business 15(2):85-115. https://doi.org/10.35152/snusjb.2009.15.2.004

Tools


Copyright © 2025  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic