ZEVENAR SK s.r.o. · 02
Kutatási írások
Két angol nyelvű szakmai cikk a kistermelői kutatásról, az EUDR-ről és a háztartási jövedelem méréséről. A kutatás és terepi vizsgálatok a médiaintelligencia.
English · 19 October 2026
The EU Deforestation Regulation and smallholders: what changes at the farm gate?
From a policy objective to a research question
The EU Deforestation Regulation seeks to reduce the connection between European consumption and deforestation. Cocoa and coffee are among the commodities covered by the framework. The European Commission’s overview explains the policy objective and links to current implementation resources. At the farm gate, the useful research question is how information requests become practical tasks: who records a plot, who checks a record, and who helps a household correct an error?
The discussion below proposes questions for study design. It reports no commissioned fieldwork or measured outcomes. Application dates and detailed obligations should be checked against current official guidance when a project is commissioned; a research article cannot establish whether an individual transaction complies.
Start with the information journey
A practical study could follow a record from a farm visit to a cooperative register and then to a buyer’s system. Researchers should distinguish information that is requested, information that is actually collected, and information that can be linked reliably to a transaction. These are separate observations. An available coordinate does not, by itself, explain whether the record identifies the intended plot or whether later corrections reach every relevant system.
An interview guide might ask farmers to describe the last request they received, the language used, the time required and the help available. The same questions could be put to cooperative staff and buyers. Comparing accounts can identify a point for further investigation without assuming that one respondent’s account proves an entire supply chain’s performance.
Measure the work around the data
The Commission’s smallholder factsheet explains that farmers who do not themselves place products on the EU market may nevertheless receive requests for production information from business partners. That distinction matters for questionnaire wording: an interviewer should ask about actual requests and responsibilities rather than presume that every farmer has the same legal role.
A proposed field instrument could record travel time, repeat visits, connectivity difficulties and whether someone else completes a digital task. It could also separate a one-off mapping exercise from recurring record maintenance. These measures would help a study examine how an information system operates. They would not establish a compliance certificate or predict a farmer’s future market access.
Include households beyond the easiest contact list
A cooperative membership list can provide a useful starting frame, but the research question should determine the population. If a study concerns all growers in a district, a member-only sample needs an explicit coverage limitation. A design might compare members and non-members where a suitable frame and permissions exist. It should report exclusions and unsuccessful contacts alongside completed interviews.
Pilot interviews can test whether local terms for a plot, household or production season match the definitions in the questionnaire. A mapping task and an income interview may require different respondents and different consent explanations. Combining them for convenience should be justified against respondent burden and the information genuinely needed for analysis.
Turn findings into a usable decision
An analysis plan could group findings around access to support, completeness of records and the handling of corrections. Results should distinguish direct observation, self-reported experience and researcher interpretation. If a small pilot identifies a recurring difficulty, that is a reason to investigate the process; it is not a population estimate.
A useful final output would connect each supported finding to a practical question for the commissioning team: simplify an instruction, test an alternative collection route or clarify who resolves disputed records. Data collection should begin with an agreed purpose, proportionate access controls and a clear explanation to participants. The proposed value of field research is a clearer account of how a system works for the people asked to use it.
Sources and further reading
- European Commission: Regulation on Deforestation-free Products
- European Commission: smallholder information factsheet (2023; background material)
Research design commentary; sources reviewed 19 October 2026. No commissioned project results are presented.
English · 19 October 2026
Measuring living income: why household-level data matter
Define the decision before the questionnaire
A crop sales figure answers a narrower question than a household income estimate. Research intended to understand a living income gap needs an explicit account of the household, the reference period and the income components included. The Living Income Community of Practice provides a framework for measuring smallholder household income. Its guidance distinguishes this purpose from measuring the profitability of a single crop.
The following discussion sets out proposed research design choices. It contains no client results or estimates of any community’s income. Before collecting data, a commissioning team should decide whether it needs an exploratory picture, a baseline for monitoring or evidence for evaluating an intervention. The strength of the eventual conclusion depends on that choice and the design supporting it.
Build a transparent account of income
The household income guidance offers a structure for considering different sources and their associated costs. A questionnaire should make its accounting choices visible rather than hide them behind one total. The research team should specify how it handles crop production, other farm activities, earnings outside the farm and relevant non-cash components. Definitions should be adapted carefully to the study setting and documented before analysis.
A pilot could ask respondents to explain how they arrived at a figure. This can reveal whether an answer describes sales, cash received, an estimate of production or income after expenses. A survey application can flag an unexpected value, but only a clear question and a consistent definition can establish what the answer was intended to measure.
Choose a period people can describe
A proposed questionnaire could anchor questions to locally recognisable seasons and events, then reconcile these answers to a common reference period. Interviewers should record uncertainty rather than silently replace it with a precise number. If income is estimated from several components, the analysis should preserve the assumptions used for each one.
The design should also identify who is able to answer. One household member may know crop sales while another manages a separate activity. Additional interviews require a clear purpose and appropriate arrangements; they should not be added automatically. A small pilot can test whether the planned interview length is workable and whether respondents understand which people are included in the household definition.
Match the method to the intended comparison
IDH’s income measurement resources support deliberate choices between primary and secondary information. Its roadmap also discusses comparing household income with an appropriate benchmark and reviewing whether existing data are fit for use. Those resources provide a starting point for a study protocol, rather than a substitute for documenting local assumptions.
For a proposed repeated study, the team could record how the sampling frame, questionnaire, timing and processing rules will remain comparable. If a definition changes, a bridge analysis may be needed before interpreting movement as an improvement. A change in the reported average can reflect a different set of respondents as well as a change in incomes. That possibility should be investigated before making an impact claim.
Report variation and uncertainty clearly
A useful analysis plan could present the distribution of income alongside a central estimate, with uncertainty appropriate to the sample design. It should state the population covered and avoid treating a convenience sample as representative. Any comparison with a benchmark needs aligned units and a clear explanation of household size, location, reference period and price assumptions.
The final report should make calculation choices reviewable while protecting respondents. A commissioning team may need aggregated tables and a methods note rather than identifiable household records. Findings should distinguish measured values, imputed values and assumptions. Household-level data can support a more relevant discussion of livelihoods when the definitions, coverage and limitations are visible to the people using the evidence. The aim is a defensible decision, with a record of how the evidence supports it.
Sources and further reading
- Living Income Community of Practice: household income measurement guidance
- IDH: Income Measurement Guidance
- IDH: Calculating the living income gap
Research design commentary; sources reviewed 19 October 2026. No commissioned project results are presented.
Beszéljünk a kutatásról
Kapcsolat a kutatási üzletággalinfo@zevenar.com
A megkeresés a levelezőprogramot nyitja meg; ott ellenőrizd és küldd el.