Impact Evaluation of KSNDMC Help Desk Assessment Report.pdf · Page v Table 2.4: Distribution of...

Page i

Impact Evaluation of KSNDMC

Help-Desk Services

Implemented by

The Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Centre,

Government of Karnataka, Bangalore

Aditya Chavali

V Ramaswamy

G Shivakumar Nayka

K A Ambarish

S Subramanian

Center for Economic Studies and Policies Institute for Social and Economic Change

Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560 072

March 2013

Page ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are thankful to ….

Karnataka State Natural Disaster

Monitoring Cell, Bangalore

For sponsoring the study.

Dr. V S Prakash

Director,


Monitoring Centre, Bangalore

For giving us opportunity to undertake

this study and for all the

encouragements and help rendered to

us.

Prof. R S Deshpande

Director,

Institute for Social and Economic

Change, Bangalore

For providing constant support from

initial stage of study to the finalization

of report. For spearheading the work

and without his prodding this study

could not have been completed.

Staffs of Institute for Social and

Economic Change and Karnataka State

Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell

Bangalore

For their excellent timely support

Respondent in the selected districts of

Karnataka...............

State level officials

District level officials

Taluk Level Officials

Farmers

Media

For participating in the interviews and

discussions and providing valuable

information and suggestions.

All those who have directly & indirectly involved in the study.

Usual disclaimer applies. -Authors-

Page iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgement .................................................................................................... ii

List of Maps ............................................................................................................ iv

List of Figure .......................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables .......................................................................................................... iv

List of Appendix Tables .......................................................................................... vi

Foreword ............................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER I: Introduction .................................................................................. 1

CHAPTER II: Socio-Demographic Profile of Respondents ........................... 10

CHAPTER III: The Farmers Responses .......................................................... 19

CHAPTER IV: The Officials Response ............................................................ 38

CHAPTER V: Summary and Recommendations ............................................ 41

Appendix ................................................................................................................ 45

Page iv

LIST OF MAPS

Map 2.1: Distributions of respondents’ by household income ............................. 12

Map 2.2: Distributions of respondents’ by type of land owned ............................ 14

Map 3.1: Distribution of respondents’ source of information about KSNDMC .. 20

Map 3.2: Distribution of number of respondents’ contacted to KSNDMC .......... 21

Map 3.3: Distribution of time frame of information sought from KSNDMC

by respondents ........................................................................................ 25

Map 3.4: Distribution of respondents’ nature of information sought

from KSNDMC ...................................................................................... 27

Map 3.5: Distribution of usage of information sought from KSNDMC

by respondents ........................................................................................ 29

Map 3.6: Distribution of respondents’ level of satisfaction about KSNDMC ...... 35

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 2.1: Distribution of sample respondents by size of

the household .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents by number of time calls

made to KSNDMC ................................................................................. 22

Figure 3.2: Distribution of sample respondents by duration of

each call made to the Helpdesk .............................................................. 23

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Hazards for which KSNDMC provide technical services .................. 3

Table 1.2: List of stakeholders for the study ........................................................ 6

Table 1.3: Officials responded for emails and the telephone calls ...................... 7

Table 1.4: Type of response got for the telephone numbers of farmers

provided by KSNDMC ....................................................................... 8

Table 2.1: Age of respondents ........................................................................... 10

Table 2.2: Distribution of sample respondents by educational level ................. 11

Table 2.3: Distribution of sample respondents by type of lands owned ............ 15

Page v

Table 2.4: Distribution of sample respondents by type of crops grown ........... 17

Table 2.5: Distribution of sample respondents by type of resourceful

officials contacted ............................................................................. 18

Table 3.1: Distribution of sample respondents by nature of problems in getting

Connected to Helpdesk ..................................................................... 24

Table 3.2: Distribution of sample respondents by sharing of information ........ 30

Table 3.3: Distribution of sample respondents by use of information

by others ............................................................................................ 30

Table 3.4: Distribution of respondents by type of usage of information

by others ............................................................................................ 31

Table 3.5: Distribution of farmers Sow seed irrigation and got rain

next day ............................................................................................. 32

Table 3.6: Distribution of farmers by status of crop sown ................................. 32

Table 3.7: Distribution of farmers by type of problem ...................................... 33

Table 3.8: Distribution of farmers by extent of loss under gone ....................... 33

Table 3.9: Distribution of respondents by number of times affected prior to the

Helpdesk services .............................................................................. 34

Table 3.10: Respondents not affected/undergone loss after receiving the

technical advice from KSNDMC ...................................................... 34

Table 3.11: Correlations between the key variables and the level of

satisfaction ....................................................................................... 36

Table 3.12: Distribution of sample respondents by nature of suggestions ......... 37

Table 4.1: Distribution of sample respondents by receipt of SMS and other

services from KSNDMC ................................................................... 39

Table 4.2: Distribution of sample respondents by usefulness and continuation

of the services from KSNDMC ....................................................... 39

Page vi

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES

App.1: Officials response ................................................................................... 45

App.2: Additional farmers data .......................................................................... 45

App.3: Distribution of respondents’ by household income ................................ 46

App.4: Distribution of respondents’ by type of land owned .............................. 47

App.5: Distribution of respondents’ source of information about KSNDMC ... 48

App.6: Distribution of number of respondents’ contacted To KSNDMC.......... 49

App.7: Distribution of time frame of information sought from KSNDMC

by respondents ........................................................................................ 50

App.8: Distribution of respondents’ nature of information sought

from KSNDMC ...................................................................................... 51

App.9: Distribution of usage of information sought from KSNDMC

by respondents ....................................................................................... 52

App.10: Distribution of respondents’ level of satisfaction about

the KSNDMC ....................................................................................... 53

App.11: Questionnaire for various officials ......................................................... 54

App.12: Questionnaire for farmers ....................................................................... 55

App.13: List of farmers contacted ...................................................................... 56

Page vii

FOREWORD

One of the major historical drawbacks in meeting the challenge of drought was the

availability of rainfall data without delay. Experience in the policy circles revealed that

the response to drought was delayed because of the non-availability of the rainfall data and

also lack of knowledge about the deficiency in rainfall. Dr. Prakash, Director, Karnataka

State Natural Disasters Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC), worked tirelessly in order to bring

real time rainfall data-sharing with the help of telemetric rain gauge stations. This work

began a few years back and the success is unimaginable with a good speed. Now,

KSNDMC has established rain gauge stations in every hobli of Karnataka and the data are

available for every point in the day for 24 hours on all the 365 days. The data are directly

transmitted to the central server located in KSNDMC. These data are also used in

generating weekly, fortnightly and monthly reports to monitor without any delay and

respond to the call of drought or flood. The natural calamities thus, could be well

responded within 24 hours using the network of officers, farmers and other implementing

agencies. As an additional step in the direction of helping the farmers, the KSNDMC

opened ‘Help Desk’ facilities for providing weather related information to farmers,

fishermen and common man and to advice the farmers on probability of rainfall as well as

other questions which they ask. This facility has been now in operation for a few years

and the response is very encouraging.

The present study was undertaken to locate the effectiveness of the ‘Help Desk’ in

meeting the requirements of the callers to the ‘Help Desk’. This 24-hour telephone facility

has been used by a large number of farmers across the state; however, the study is

confined to a sample of 91 respondents who approached the KSNDMC ‘Help-Desk’ for

different services. The study is based on the telephonic conversation and discussion with

the officers, stakeholders and the farmers who tried to contact the help-desk and sought to

know their satisfaction level through these interviews. The study team also visited a few

locations in the state to understand the ground situation.

We were happy to note that the farmers and the stakeholders had expressed true

satisfaction with the information received from the ‘Help-Desk’. which was also

collaborated by the officers and implementers. The early warning system through ‘Help-

Page viii

Desk’ is quite useful and could be used effectively in future. We are sure that this

experiment will be extended to cover most of the districts of the state and the other natural

calamities that confront the agricultural sector of the state. This report provides the

required base for the ‘Help-Desk’ services of KSNDMC which have been used by the

stakeholders and must be expanded to cover other areas. It also points out a few policy

pointers.

I congratulate the authors of the report for their untiring work as well as the

KSNDMC for providing such important services to the farmers of Karnataka.

Date: March 27, 2013 R.S.Deshpande

Director

Institute for Social and Economic Change

Nagarabhavi, Bangalore-560 072

Page 1

Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1: Background

Heredity and environment are the two

contributing factors for the development of

human personality. Heredity is a

biological factor inherited through genes

from one's parents or ancestors. And

environment refers to socio-physical

surroundings of man, which nurture his

abilities or equip him with a host of talents.

The social surroundings include caste,

class, status, neighborhood relations, peer

group connections, occupation,

participation in the community activities,

and membership in different organizations

etc. And the physical surroundings consist

of land, water, hillocks, forests, etc. Thus,

environment is a very complex entity that

not only offers a range of natural resources

for socio-economic and cultural growth of

the human beings but also contributes

immensely to the personality development.

As a matter of fact, environmental

development cannot be obtained with sheer

economic growth while environmental

degradation does contribute to economic

backwardness.

Floods, droughts and scarcity conditions

resulting from the uneven and irregular

monsoons have been hampering the

agricultural development and also causing

loss of lives and vegetation. It was reported

that between 1960 and 1981, 96 such

disastrous events killed as many as 60,000

people in India, among whom 25,000 were

killed in cyclones and 15,000 in floods.

The last 30 years statistics for India further

reveal that on an average 1,400 people and

over 1,00,000 cattle perish in floods every

year.

Scientists and technocrats offer several

reasons for such disasters. They also help

the administration to take proper

rehabilitation measures to alleviate the

distress. Of late, scientists and

technologists have offered several methods

to forecast the occurrence of such disasters

in advance which should enable the

concerned administration to take proper

measures and mitigate the adverse

implications of the natural disasters on

human population. Further, with the

advancement of science and technology,

now (today) it is possible for a person

(including the farmer) to use new

technologies to enhance the productivity

and accommodate climatic aberrations. In

this direction, the Karnataka State Natural

Page 2

Disaster Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC) is

providing several services to the people of

Karnataka and the Government not only to

take timely and proactive steps to be prepared

for the onslaught of disaster caused by

various natural calamities but also enable the

farmer to improve the farm output and reduce

the cost of cultivation by their services.

1.2: The Karnataka State Natural

Disaster Monitoring Centre

Karnataka has the distinction of being the

first state in the country to establish Drought

Monitoring Cell (DMC) in 1988 as an

institutional mechanism with the main

objective of assisting various stakeholders to

take timely and proactive steps to prevent and

get away from the sloth of disaster caused by

various natural disasters. Later it was

renamed as the Karnataka State Natural

Disaster Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC) in

2007. KSNDMC is an autonomous Body,

affiliated to Department of Science &

Technology, Government of Karnataka. It

covers and provides a formal common

platform to achieve synergy in the field of

disaster management in all the 30 districts of

Karnataka. The main objectives are:

Hazard mapping and vulnerability

studies;

Strengthening of information

technology for natural disaster

management;

Monitoring and impact assessment of

natural hazards;

Human resource development mainly by

imparting training;

Natural disaster early warning system.

KSNDMC has an Executive Committee

Chaired by Principal Secretary, Department

of IT, BT and S&T with Principal Secretary,

Revenue as Vice Chairperson. The members

are from line departments and scientific

organizations. The Governing Body is an

apex body headed by the Chief Secretary

with the Development Commissioner as the

Vice President.

It has been serving as a common platform to

the various response players in the field of

natural disaster management by providing

timely proactive science and technology

inputs. The Master Control Facility will

further strengthen the activities of the centre

in further providing information, reports, and

advisories to the community, research

organizations and the Government. The

Centre provides inputs to the farming

community, agriculture and horticulture

based sector, fisherman, transport sector,

power and electricity sector, state and district

level Disaster Management Authorities in

Karnataka.

1.3: Components and Implementation

of the Programme

The Disaster Management Act 2005,

Government of India reiterates a paradigm

shift in disaster management from rescue,

relief centric approach to preparedness and

Page 3

early warning approach. It is said that a rupee

spent on early warning and preparedness

helps in reducing the cost on rescue, relief

and rehabilitation. Disaster Management is

multidisciplinary and has the complexity

of information sharing and reporting. It

comprises installation of field monitoring

sensors - weather, geological,

hydrological, collection of data on real

time, transmission of the same to a

central computational/analysis centre,

data processing, analysis, alert

recognition, simulation through

appropriate mathematical models,

customized report generation,

dissemination of the

alerts/reports/advisories to the users.

Table 1.1: Hazards for which the KSNDMC provide technical services

Climate Related Hazards Drought, Flood, Cloudburst, Hailstorm, Lightning, Coastal Erosion,

Storm Surge, Cyclone

Geological Hazards Earthquake, Landslide, Tsunami

Hydrological Hazards Groundwater depletion and Aquifer Salinity

Biological Hazards Plant : Pest and Insect attack Human: Plague, SARS, Bird Flu

Currently the Center operates GPRS

enabled and solar powered telemetric rain

gauges, established and operational at all

the 747 hobli centers, 650 Gram

Panchayats. In addition, 64 satellites

based weather Monitoring Stations have

been installed and are operational in

association with ISRO. GPRS enabled

weather monitoring stations are being

established at 137 taluk headquarters.

VSAT enabled and solar powered

Permanent Seismic Monitoring stations

have been installed and operational in the

State. About 20 lakh data is received on

real/near time basis. All these activities

are managed via a web enabled data base

management, application development

and customization. With all this data,

KSNDMC disseminates the information

to various stake holders like District

Collectors, Chief Executive officers,

Assistant Commissioners, Tahsildars,

Joint Directors (Agri), Agricultural

Officers, Raitha Samparka Kendras, Print

and Electronic Media, etc. The

information dissemination takes place in

four formats namely through Reports,

Forecast, Alerts and most importantly

dissemination of information through the

Helpdesk on demand.

Page 4

KSNDMC Reports

The KSNDMC from the time of its

establishment started collecting, collating

and construing upon the data and passes

the relevant information in the form of

daily, weekly, monthly and annual

reports. The reports are based on the data

from Hobli and Gram Panchayat level

telemetric rain gauge stations and

telemetric weather stations in Karnataka.

The transfer of information to various

stakeholders is also undertaken through e-

mail, print media and web portal at

appropriate time. The reports prepared by

KSNDMC provide highlights of weather

in the State during the preceding 24 hours

mainly on rainfall, temperature, relative

humidity and other key disasters.

Timely Forecasts

Apart from the highlights of the previous

24 hours, KSNDMC has started

providing weather forecast for following

24 hours, next 3 and 5 days. This facility

develops and calibrates using Hobli level

weather forecast with various

mathematical models. This is being

monitored by the Master Control Facility

established by KSNDMC at Bangalore,

operational 24 hours x 7 days x 365 days

and provides early warnings and

advisories related to rain fall,

temperature, humidity and also

information on natural disasters.

Weather Alerts

Another important step by which

KSNDMC is disseminating the

information to all the users on to a daily

basis is through alerts sent via electronic

medium and SMS over mobile phones.

This information is short and contains

only important aspects which would alert

the officers and help them to take fast and

necessary decisions and also take

precautionary steps to resist the

unforeseen situation.

Helpdesk

On 1st October 2010, KSNDMC

introduced ‘Helpdesk’ services to all the

farmers, where in the Center has created

two wireless telephone dedicated network

operating 24 hours x 7days x 365days.

Here two numbers are circulated among

the farming community which allows

them to contact the officials of KSNDMC

directly over the phone and get to know

the recent updates of the weather

conditions pertaining to their Panchayats.

It helps the farmers in scheduling of

various agricultural activities in

accordance with the changing conditions.

The two numbers are 080-22745232 for

South Interior Karnataka and 080-

22745234 for North Interior Karnataka.

Page 5

Due to the increased demand for the

information from the public, the Center

has recently increased the number of

telephones to 10.

1.4: The Context

The KSNDMC is functioning since 2007

by providing various services to public

and the bureaucrats. The Executive

Committee of KSNDMC took a decision

to evaluate the impact of these services

on the community and government in

their day to day administration.

It is in this context that ISEC was

approached to conduct an evaluation

study on the impact and advantages of the

various services with a particular focus

on the ‘Helpdesk’ which caters to the

bottom most stakeholders. At the behest

of KSNDMC, ISEC has conducted the

third party appraisal of the various

initiatives of KSNDMC and has brought

out the status and current position of the

programme. This would enable

KSNDMC to take necessary steps to

further improvise and penetrate the

programme in a more holistic way to all

parts of the state and cover maximum

farmers and furbish the economic and

social status of the state. The main

objectives of the study and methodology

are enunciated below.

1.5: Objectives

To analyze the perception and

utility of various services of

KSNDMC from the beneficiaries

and stakeholders.

To suggest appropriate and

suitable measures to improve the

existing system.

1.6: Methodology

An attempt was made to study the impact

of the services of the KSNDMC on

various beneficiaries and stakeholders

starting from the top government officials

to the farmers in the field. The study was

mainly based on telephonic interviews

and e-mails with the stakeholders by

using a structured questionnaire to collect

the quantitative data. Telephonic survey

was carried out using questionnaire

canvassed to the identified farmers. The

conversation with the farmers was also

recorded. In addition, the research team

made a brief visits to a few villages in

Haveri, Bijapur and Yadgir districts and

interacted with the farmers individually

and in groups apart from the community

leaders. During such meetings the team

was able to collect qualitative information

regarding the usefulness of the services of

KSNDMC and the problems encountered

along with their suggestions to make the

services better.

Page 6

Due to lack of time and resources, the

research team could not spend sufficient

time with the stakeholders, especially

with the farmers to conduct case studies.

However, the information gathered from

the farmers, officials and others over

telephone enabled the researcher to arrive

at reasonable conclusions. KSNDMC has

extended the fullest possible assistance to

ISEC staff in providing all relevant

information and contact details. The

evaluation study is based on the contact

details of various stakeholders provided

by KSNDMC. The impact of the

programme has been assessed from the

point of view of the stakeholders

presented in the section “Universe”.

1.7: Universe

The sample selection was finalized during

the meeting of officials of KSNDMC and

the ISEC faculty. It was decided that the

study has to cover all districts of

Karnataka based on the calls made to the

helpdesk and the alerts and mails sent to

various persons referred in the list of

Stakeholders (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2: List of stakeholders for the study

Stake holders NOs./Size

I State Level Officials

1 CM Office

2 Ministry/Political (Optional)

3 Government Department: Department Secretaries of Revenue; Agriculture, etc.

4 Media: Print and Electronic

5 Other Agencies: Insurance Companies (Corp)

II District Level

1 DC 30

2 DEO 30

3 CEO 30

4 Joint Directors of Agriculture 30

5 Deputy Directors of Agriculture 30

6 Joint Directors of Horticulture

7 Deputy Directors of Horticulture

8 Horticultural Clinics 30

III Taluk Level

1 Tahsildars 176

2 Assistant Director Agriculture 176

3 Agricultural Officer 176

4 Agricultural Assistant (Tech. Asst.)

5 Assistant Agriculture Office (AAO) 176 X 2

6 Assistant Agricultural Officer Range (1210)

7 Agricultural Assistant at Gram Panchayat Level (5640)

8 Assistant Director Horticulture 176

IV Farmers 400-500

Page 7

In order to elicit the opinion of the

stakeholders listed in Table 1.2, a simple

questionnaire was sent through email to

the entire officials at the state level,

District level, Taluk level, and to the

address of the researchers at ICRISAT

with the generous help of KSNDMC.

Most of the above stakeholders were

receiving alerts and reports through SMS

and emails respectively from the

KSNDMC, they did not feel necessary to

respond to our emails in spite of the

questionnaire was sent from the

KSNDMC. Despite reminders, except 4

persons from media and the equal number

from the bureaucracy, there was a little

response from others. As a last resort and

after elaborate discussions with the

Director, KSNDMC, we arrived at a

consensus to call the officials through

telephone. Accordingly we tried to

contact 127 officials constituting 45

Assistant Directors, 44 Tahsildars, 30

District collectors (Deputy

Commissioners), 3 Joint Director of

Agriculture and one Associate Director of

Research, University of Agriculture

Sciences. Among them, we were able to

get response from 105 officials, which

was quite encouraging. Among others, 3

officials had switched off their mobiles,

13 did not to receive the calls followed by

3 officials whose mobiles were either ‘not

reachable’ or got a response as ‘does not

exist’ (Table 1.3). [

Table 1.3: Officials responded for emails and the Telephone calls

Officials

Nature of Response

Total

Responded

Not Responded

Switched

off

Not

reachable

No

response

Does not

exist

Assistant Director 34 (75.56) 2 (4.44) 3 (6.67) 5 (11.11) 1 (2.22) 45 (100)

Tahsildars 39 (88.64) 2(4.55) 3 (6.82) 44 (100)

District Commissioner 24 (80.00) 1 (3.33) 5 (16.67) 30 (100)

Joint director of agriculture 3 (100.00) 3 (100)

Media 4 (100.00) 4 (100)

Associate director of research 1 (100.00) 1 (100)

Total (105) (3) (5) (13) (1) 127 (100)

Note: Figures in parenthesis are percentages.

Farmers

It was decided to call farmers over phone

and elicit their opinion. The KSNDMC

has provided about 122 telephone

numbers of farmers who had approached

the Helpdesk to seek assistance. We tried

Page 8

to contact all of them and tried calling the

numbers provided by KSNDMC. Out of

122 numbers called, we were able to get

responses from 91 farmers. Of the

remaining, 11 numbers did not respond, 7

numbers were reported as ‘doesn’t exist’,

and 5 numbers were switched off. (see

Table 1.4).

Table 1.4: Type of response got for the Telephone numbers of farmers provided by

KSNDMC

Nature of Response Number of calls Percentage

Responded 91 74.59

No response 11 9.02

Doesn’t exist 7 5.74

Switched off 5 4.10

Wrong Number 2 1.64

Temporally out service 2 1.64

Total 122 100

The information gathered from the

farmers, officials and others over

telephone enabled the researcher to arrive

at reasonable conclusions. The impact of

the programme has been assessed from

the point of view of the telephone

interviews of the stakeholders. Apart

from collecting the information based on

the interview schedule, later on the

research team decided to add a few more

questions to the farmers so as to assess

the impact of KSNDMC helpdesk.

The research team also undertook a brief

field visit during April 2012 to the

districts of Haveri, Yadgir and Bijapur to

have a personal discussions and visit the

farms to assess the impact after getting

the scientific information from the

helpdesk. The research team visited the

villages of Rattahalli, Yethanahalli and

Ganavi Siddhagiri in Haveri district,

Basavanabagewadi and Kalgurki villages

of Bijapr district and Kembhavi village in

Yadagir district from where a large

number of calls for information were

received. During such visits, the research

team met Deputy Commissioner, three

Additional Deputy Commissioners, one

Zilla Panchayat CEO, two Tahsildars,

four agricultural officers and several

other officials and collected information

from them.

1.8: ANALYSIS

The analysis of data has provided a holistic

Page 9

understanding of the background of the

people living in different geographic

locations in Karnataka. While analyzing

the data and the field level notes, utmost

care was taken to describe the real situation

at the ground level. For the purpose of

comparing field level notes or data and to

arrive at a comparable picture, the ‘district’

was taken as the basic variable. The data or

information pertaining to each district was

tabulated separately and presented in the

form of tables. Such an analysis helps the

reader to understand the variations as well

as similarities of perceptions of people

belonging to different locations and also in

different economic zones.

Page 10

CHAPTER 2: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

2.1: Introduction

An attempt is made here to understand the

socio economic profile of the farmers who

had called the Helpdesk of KSNDMC to

seek information. Since the

commencement of the Helpdesk facility

many calls were made to the Helpdesk by

the farmers but only 122 numbers were

recorded. The total numbers of responses

were 91 as explained earlier chapter. The

analysis of data on the demographic

characteristics of the sample respondents

has been presented in the following

paragraphs based on these respondents.

2.2: Age

The age-wise classification of data has

shown that 81.32 per cent of respondents

belonged to the age group of 21 to 50 years

of age. Another 13.19 per cent respondents

were in the age group of 51 to 65 years.

Only 3.30 per cent respondents were less

than 20 years of age followed by 2.20 per

cent of respondents who were of the age of

66 years and above (Table 2.1). It is

evident that majority (81 per cent) of

respondents who take agricultural

decisions are in the age group of 21 to 50

years.

Table 2.1: Age Distribution of Respondents

Age of the Respondents No of Respondents Per cent

Up to 20 Years 3 3.30

21 to 35 Years 36 39.56

36 to 50 Years 38 41.76

51 to 65 Years 12 13.19

66 Years & above 2 2.20

Total 91 100

2.3: Educational Level

Table 2.2 has revealed that except 1.10

per cent, all the respondents were literate.

Among them, majorities were either

graduates (40.66 per cent) or had high

school education (39.56 per cent). Only

7.69 per cent of the respondent had

studied up to primary level. The level of

education is an important factor for the

people to approach the Helpdesk of

KSNDMC.

Page 11

Table 2.2: Distribution of sample respondents by Educational level

Educational level of the Respondents No of Respondents Per cent

Illiterate 1 1.10

Primary 7 7.69

High School 36 39.56

Graduate 37 40.66

Others 10 10.98

Total 91 100

2.4: Family Size

Table 2.3 has revealed that a majority

(48.35 per cent) of respondents’

households had 4 to 5 persons per

household or family followed by 29.67

per cent of households with 6 to 10

persons Another 15.38 per cent of

respondent’s households had a family

size of less than 3 persons per household.

Only 6.59 per cent of respondent’s

households had more than 11 persons per

household. As a large majority of

respondent’s households (63.73 per cent)

has less than 5 persons per household one

can infer that the share of nuclear families

seems to be considerable among the

sample respondents’ households.

Figure 2.1: Distribution of sample

respondents by size of the household

2.5: Annual Income

Income is an important indicator of the

economic status of a family. The family

income comprises income from main

occupation, subsidiary occupations

pursued by family members and also the

non-occupational income like rent,

pension, etc.

Page 12

Page 13

Map no 2.1 has shown that of the total

respondents, 30.77 per cent of

respondents have not reported their

household annual income. Of the

remaining, about 22 per cent have

reported that their household income was

about Rs. 50,000 per annum. Another

17.58 per cent reported that their annual

income varied between Rs. 2 lakh to Rs.

5 lakh followed by 14.29 per cent whose

annual income was between Rs 1 lakh to

Rs. 2 lakh. While 8.79 per cent of

respondents were in the income group of

more than Rs. 5 lakh, the rest (6.59 per

cent) had an annual income of between

Rs.50, 000 to Rs.1,00,000. Thus from the

above analysis one could infer that the

sample had spread across different

income groups in the study area.

2.6: Total Land Owned

Land is an important asset in rural areas

not only in terms of livelihood but also in

terms of status. Map no 2.2 has revealed

that 36.26 per cent of respondents were

large farmers having more than 10

hectares of land followed by 24.18 per

cent of medium farmers owning between

4.01 to 10 hectares of land. Another

18.68 per cent were semi-medium

farmers owning land between 2.01 to 4

hectares followed by 13.19 per cent of

small farmers with 1.01 to 2 hectares and

6.59 per cent were marginal farmers

owning less than one hectare. It is

important to note that 1.10 per cent of

respondents were landless. It is quite

appreciable that nearly 20 per cent of the

small and marginal farmers are seeking

the services of the KSNDMC to enhance

their agricultural productivity along with

another 1 per cent landless farmers who

engage themselves in leasing in land for

cultivation. It is evident from the above

analysis that small and marginal farmers

also seek and get the assistance of the

Helpdesk to enhance the productivity of

crops and minimize the losses in crop

production.

Page 14

Page 15

2.7: Type of Land Owned

Except one respondent, all others had

land. Table 2.3 has revealed that 35.16

per cent of the sample households owned

only dry land and 4.40 per cent owned

irrigated land followed by 2.20 per cent

of the sample households who owned

plantation land. Those who own both dry

and wet land constituted 26.37 per cent.

The remaining 30.78 per cent of

respondents owned plantation along with

dry and wet land (24.18 per cent) or dry

land (3.30 per cent) or wet land (3.30 per

cent). The above analysis clearly

indicates the importance of scientific

information from KSNDMC not only

important to grow commercial crops in

wet lands or for the plantations but also

equally important to grow food crops in

dry lands.

Table 2.3: Distribution of sample respondents by type of lands owned

Type of land owned No of Respondents Per cent

Landless 1 1.10

Dry land only 32 35.16

Wet land only 4 4.40

Plantation only 2 2.20

Dry & Wet land 24 26.37

Dry & Plantation 3 3.30

Wet & Plantation 3 3.30

Dry, Wet & Plantation 22 24.18

Total 91 100

2.8: Cropping Pattern

Cropping pattern varies from district to

district. For the present analysis the crops

are clubbed under four categories namely

food crops, commercial crops, seed crops

and plantation crops. The food crops

include jowar, paddy, ragi, wheat, maize

and other pulses. The commercial crops

include grapes, banana, sapota,

pomegranate, lemon, cotton along with

food crops like maize, vegetables, etc.

The oil seed crops include sunflower,

groundnut, kusbi (safflower), etc. The

seed crops grown in the area include

tomato, brinjal, pumpkin, chilies,

sunflower, cotton, etc, grown on contract

with the private seed companies. The

Page 16

plantation crops include coffee, tea,

coconut, arecanut, rubber, teak, etc.

Among those who own dry land, a

majority of respondents (28.57 per cent)

grow food crops only. Another 20.88 per

cent grow food crops along with

commercial crops followed by 8.79 per

cent each who grow oil seeds and

commercial crops with oil seeds along

food crops respectively in the dry land

depending upon the rains. Another 12.09

per cent of respondents grow commercial

crops as against 1.10 per cent who grows

oil seeds. However, 7.69 per cent of

respondents grow both commercial and

oil seed crops. Another interesting fact is

that the remaining 2.2 per cent of

respondents produce seeds in their dry

land for the private companies during

rainy season (Table 2.4).

Though 41.76 per cent of respondents had

no irrigation facility, others depend on

canal or tank or the tube wells to raise the

crops. Among the farmers who had

irrigation facility, a majority of them

grow commercial crops either exclusively

or with other crops. Table 2.4 shows that

24.18 per cent of respondents have grown

only commercial crops. 7.69 per cent

grow both commercial and food crops

followed by 4.40 per cent who grow

commercial crops with oil seeds and 2.20

per cent grow commercial crops along

with both food and oil seeds. Another

9.89 per cent grow only food crops and

1.10 per cent grows only oil seeds.

However, 2.20 per cent grow both food

and oil seed crops. About 6.59 per cent of

respondents produce seeds for the private

seed companies. The queries of farmers

to KSNDMC for information directly

relate to the cropping pattern as they

venture to grow commercial crops apart

from involving in seed production not

only in irrigated land but also in the rain-

fed areas.

Only one-third (32.97 per cent) of the

total respondents had land under

plantation. Coffee, tea, coconut, arecanut,

rubber, teak, etc were some of the

plantation crops grown (Table 2.4). These

farmers called the Helpdesk to assess the

time for spraying pesticides and use of

the irrigation water for their fields so that

they can take required precautions to

avoid unseen calamities.

Page 17

Table 2.4: Distribution of sample respondents by type of crops grown

Type of Crops Grown

Dry Land Irrigated Land Plantation

Respondents Percent Respondents Percent Respondents Percent

Not Applicable 9 9.89 38 41.76 61 67.03

Food Crops 26 28.57 9 9.89 - -

Oil Seeds 1 1.10 1 1.10 - -

Commercial Crops 11 12.09 22 24.18 30 32.97

Seed Crops 2 2.20 0 0 - -

Food and Commercial crops 19 20.88 7 7.69 - -

Commercial and Oilseeds 7 7.69 4 4.40 - -

Food, Oilseed & Commercial

crops 8 8.79 - - - -

Food and oilseeds crops 8 8.79 2 2.20 - -

Vegetable Crops - - 6 6.59 - -

Food crop, Vegetable and

oilseeds - -

2 2.20 - -

Total 91 100 91 100 91 100

Note: Multiple Responses

2.9: Administrators and Other

Stakeholders

The present day agriculture needs inputs

from various sources. Though the

agricultural department officials provide

the necessary information for all

agricultural needs, farmers still depend on

others for help. While selecting seeds for

sowing the farmers contact the

agricultural scientists, neighboring

farmers and pesticide and fertilizer

dealers. Similarly, for information about

the probability of rains, a few farmers

depend on the KSNDMC before

providing irrigation or applying

pesticides or fertilizers for their crops,

especially to the commercial crops and

seed crops. For the marketing

information, seeds, fertilizer application,

etc, the farmers consult the concerned

agriculture officials. This channel of

information is becoming quite popular

but needs further extension to new areas.

In the present context, 37.36 per cent of

respondents had never approached

anybody for information or advice for

their agricultural activities. Of those who

seek information for their agricultural

needs majority (39.56 per cent) consulted

with the officials of the KSNDMC.

Similarly, 7.69 per cent depend on

agricultural department officials followed

by 6.59 per cent sought help from the

Page 18

Gramsevaks. The other sources of

information were the Joint Director,

Horticulture, Krishi Vijnana Kendra,

Raitha Samparka Kendra, etc for a few

farmers (Table 2.5).

The practice of farmers depending on

others especially the neighborhoods,

astrology, almanac, other ritiuals, etc for

rains was in practice since generations

and it is still continuing. In addition,

farmers slowly moved towards scientific

information with weather reports and

general information from agriculture

department etc. but not particular to their

own region. Now with the improvement

in science and technology, farmers

depend on KSNDMC which provides

information on rain and weather more

accurately, which is applicable to their

own Hobli or Panchayats. This has led

many farmers to call the Helpdesk very

often for information before taking

decisions on agriculture.

Table 2.5: Distribution of sample respondents by type of stakeholders contacted

Resourceful officials contacted Respondent Per cent

Not Consulted 34 37.36

Officials from Agriculture Department and KSNMDC 2 2.20

Agriculture Department 7 7.69

KSNDMC 36 39.56

J D, Horticulture 2 2.20

Krishi Vijnana Kendra 2 2.20

Agriculture University 1 1.10

Krishi Samparka Kendra 1 1.10

Gram Sevak 6 6.59

Total 91 100

Page 19

CHAPTER 3: THE FARMERS’ RESPONSES

3.1: Introduction

During the initial discussions with the

farmers, only their personal background was

collected. The initial discussions though

brief, have familiarized the researchers and

helped in collection of information regarding

the utility of services offered by the

KSNDMC. A detailed analysis of the

information collected about the services of

KSNDMC is presented in the subsequent

sections.

3.2: Source of Information

Though the KSNDMC is providing

several services to the farmers in the

state, the main source of information

about the services of KSNDMC

organization was through Media

(56 percent) which includes News Papers

(41.76 percent), Television (8.79 percent)

and the Radio (5.49 percent). The

information about the availability of

different services and their importance

was spread across the farmer community

through their friendship network and

relatives (37.36 per cent), by the officials

of the Agricultural department (6.59 per

cent) during village meetings, through

neighborhood gossips, relatives, etc,

(Map: 3.1).

3.3: Number of Calls Made

The number of calls made to contact the

helpdesk by the farmers to seek the

needed information is a strong indicator

of the significance of the KSNDMC.

Page 20

Page 21

Page 22

Map 3.2 shows that nearly 90 per cent of

the farmers who contacted the Helpdesk

for information, have made calls more

than 5 times. About 20.88 per cent of

respondents each had contacted more

than 100 times. Those who called

KSNDMC Helpdesk 5 to 10 times also

constitute 20.88 per cent. Similarly 19.78

per cent had approached the organization

11 to 25 times and 15.38 per cent had

made calls to the organization 26 to 50

times to get information about rain and

other issues. Only those who knew about

the organization recently had called once

(4.40 per cent) or 2 to 4 times (7.69 per

cent). It is evident from the above that

almost all farmers keep calling the

helpdesk as and when they need

information. It only endorses the

significance of the information provided

by KSNDMC helpdesk to the farmers.

Figure 3.1: Distribution of respondents by number of time calls made to KSNDMC

3.4: Duration of Call

The length of discussion over phone

directly relates to the familiarity of the

persons (officials) and/or significance of

the services. This seems to be true, as one

analyses the Figure 3.2. A large majority

(89 per cent) of respondents discussed

with KSNDMC helpdesk for about 2

minutes to 10 minutes. Among them

39.56 per cent of respondents had

reported that they had a conversation for

about 4 to 5 minutes followed by 29.67

per cent who spent about 2 to 3 minutes

and 19.78 per cent held discussions for

about 6 to 10 minutes with KSNDMC

Helpdesk officials collecting information

Page 23

they needed. Another 3.3 per cent of

respondents had reported that they had

discussions with KSNDMC helpdesk

officials for about 11 to 15 minutes and

the rest (4.4 per cent) had long

discussions of more than 15 minutes with

KSNDMC helpdesk officials. Everyone

who had contacted with the officials of

KSNDMC helpdesk felt that they had

fruitful discussions and had sufficient

time to get their doubts cleared.

Figure 3.2: Distribution of sample respondents by duration of each call made to the

Helpdesk

3.5: Nature of Problems in Getting the

Telephone Line/Connection

Majority of respondents (63.74 per cent)

reported that they never faced any

problem to get their mobile or land line

connected with the KSNDMC Helpdesk.

The remaining respondents had

encountered one or the other problem to

get the helpline connected. Among them,

29.67 per cent of respondents had

reported that they made several attempts

to get Helpdesk line connected as it was

busy and one had to wait for their turn.

Similarly, another 4.40 per cent reported

that they were unable to contact the

Helpdesk as there was ‘no response’

followed by 2.20 per cent who reported

that they got a response as ‘not reachable’

(Table 3.1). Since there were only two

telephone lines during the course of the

study, the above problems seem to be

realistic. However the KSNDMC has

recently added another 8 lines to the

existing 2 lines to overcome the above

problems.

Page 24

Table 3.1: Distribution of sample respondents by nature of problems in getting

connected to helpdesk

Nature of Problems Frequency Per cent

No Problem 58 63.74

At times busy 27 29.67

At times not responding 4 4.40

At times not reachable 2 2.20

Total 91 100

3.6: Since when Information was

Sought from Help Desk

Based on the knowledge of information

about the services of KSNDMC

Helpdesk, several farmers started

approaching the organization. Among

them, about 32 per cent have started to

contact the organization since 10 to 12

months followed by 29.69 per cent who

were calling the KSNDMC Helpdesk

since more than a year. Another 20.88 per

cent of respondents were approaching the

organization since 4 to 6 months followed

by 9.89 cent of respondents seeking

information from the KSNDMC

Helpdesk since 3 months and 7.69 per

cent of respondents were approaching the

organization since 7 to 9 months (Map

3.3 ).

Page 25

Page 26

Though the KSNDMC established its

Helpdesk during 2007, it required a lot of

time to be known to the farmers at large.

It is not out of place to mention the

untiring efforts of Dr. V.S. Prakash,

Director, KSNDMC and his staff in

bringing the Helpdesk close to the people

by organizing the farmer’s meetings.

They also made use of the radio,

television, news papers with special

interviews and programme to create

awareness among the public regarding the

services of KSNDMC. In addition, they

used the services of organizations like

Krishi Vijnana Kendras, Raitha Samparka

Kendras and other training centres to

demonstrate the usefulness of the services

of KSNDMC to the different sections of

population.

3.7: Nature of Information (Help)

Sought From the Help Desk

Though the KSNDMC Helpdesk provides

several services to the people, different

sections of population sought information

pertaining to their needs. In the present

context the respondents being farmers

who are naturally interested in knowing

information which help agriculture

particularly the forecasts regarding rain,

cyclone, floods, temperature, etc. With

such information in advance, will enable

the farmers to take suitable steps at

different stages of agricultural operations.

Map no 3.4 reveals that a large proportion

(90.11 per cent) of respondents

approached the KSNDMC helpdesk to

know the possibility of rain during the

next few days (within two to three days).

Only a few (6.59 per cent) had enquiries

with the Helpdesk about the rain and

temperature. The remaining 1.10 per cent

each had made enquiries regarding

cyclone and floods. The significant

information of rain in advance for

farming especially with farmers venturing

into commercial agriculture and also

horticulture is very crucial as the

information will help farmers to schedule

the activities and mitigate the impact and

loss.

3.8: Use of Information

The farmers who called the Helpdesk

have used the information to enhance the

agricultural production or to make a

business. In the present context a large

majority enquired about the possibility of

rain, the main purpose was either to start

sowing the seed or to harvest the crop.

Depending on the geographic

characteristics of the soil, farmers need to

sow the seed either prior to or after the

rains.

Page 27

Page 28

It is evident from Map 3.5, that 38.46 per

cent respondents have reported, they had

used the information for taking a decision

prior to sowing the seeds based on the

information availed from the Helpdesk. A

few farmers had reported that they could

postpone the sowing operations due to

rain and few others had taken a decision

to make preparations for sowing. This

had helped in avoiding significant losses.

Similarly 26.37 per cent of respondents

used the information prior to providing

additional irrigation. Another 26.37 per

cent of respondents used the information

to make preparations for harvesting the

crop and also for threshing. A few

farmers used the information prior to

applying pesticides and fertilizers (13.19

per cent) followed by 3.30 per cent of

respondents who wanted to know whether

it rains during flowering season or not so

as to assess the yield based on the

quantum of rain during the flowering

season. The remaining 1.10 per cent of

respondents are those who need to take a

decision to organize a drama (Street Play)

in the village and to make bricks in their

fields (Map 3.5).

3.9: Sharing of Information

It is customary among the farming

community to exchange their experience,

problems, etc not only pertaining to

agriculture but also of personal life.

Whenever a farmer introduces a new crop

or buys a new device, the information

spreads among the other farmers quickly.

In the same way, when a farmer calls the

Helpdesk and gets the information, he

immediately discusses the outcome with

his peers. Table 3.2 revealed that except

3.30 per cent of respondents, all others

have shared the information either with

other farmers (49.45 per cent) or with

their friends (34.07 per cent) and other

village members (8.79 per cent).

Page 29

Page 30

Table 3.2: Distribution of sample respondents about sharing the information

Sharing the Information Respondents Per cent

Not Sharing / Nobody 3 3.30

Friends 31 34.07

Village Members 8 8.79

Neighbors, Friends, Relatives 4 4.4

Farmers 45 49.44

Total 91 100

3.10: Use of Information by Others

Since the information given by the

respondents to the villagers, friends and

relatives seems to be of vital importance

for their agriculture, it seems almost all of

them used the information. It is evident

from Table 3.3 that about 86.81 per cent

of respondents reported that the

information they had passed on to others

used by them. That indicates the spillover

of the information to a large number of

farmers. On the contrary, 7.69 per cent of

respondents reported that the information

given by them was not used by other

farmers or friends. Only 2.20 per cent of

respondents have reported that they no

idea whether information given by them

was used or not by other farmers or

friends.

Table 3.3: Distribution of sample respondents by use of information by others

Use of information by others Frequency Per cent

Not applicable 3 3.30

Yes 79 86.81

No 7 7.69

Do not know 2 2.20

Total 91 100

3.11: Type of Usage of Information by

Others

Several farmers who got the information

from the farmers who approached

Helpdesk have also benefitted by using

that information. Majority of respondents

(46.16 per cent) reported that with the

information they pass on to their friends

and other farmers, several of them had

Page 31

either postponed the sowing operations

(25.28 per cent) and harvesting (16.48 per

cent) or both (4.40 per cent) due to rain or

make preparations for sowing or

harvesting accordingly. Another 17.58

per cent of respondents reported that a

few farmers had used the information to

provide irrigation. Similarly, 14.29 per

cent of respondents reported that their

friends used the information for spraying

pesticides and applying fertilizers, etc

(Table 3.10). 3.30 per cent of respondents

reported that they were unable to know

the reasons for not using the information

even though it was provided to them to

use for their betterment (Table 3.4).

Table 3.4: Distribution of respondents by type of usage of information by others

Purpose of Usage Respondents Per cent

Not Aware 3 3.30


Crop sowing 26 28.57

Providing Irrigation 18 19.78

Harvesting 14 15.38

Sowing and Harvesting 4 4.4

Chemicals spray and applying fertilizers 10 10.99

Crop sowing and Fertilizers application 2 2.20

Flowering season 1 1.10

Changed the crop 1 1.10

Total 91 100

3.12: Additional Information

Additional data from 28 farmers was

collected to validate the responses and

impressions we got earlier. The

information pertains to, how far the

services of KSNDMC were helpful to the

farmers. In order to arrive at a definite

conclusion we analyzed the farm

practices, especially sowing, harvesting

of fertilizers and pesticides prior and

application to and after availing the

services of KSNDMC by the farmers

Prior to the availability of information or

the services from the KSNDMC about the

rain forecasts, the farmers were

dependent on conventional beliefs

regarding the possibility of rains during

the period of sowing. Table No 3.5

reveals that except one respondent (3.57

per cent) all others have provided

irrigation during sowing prior to availing

KSNDMC services. Against their

Page 32

expectation, they got rain soon after

sowing. Due to water logging, everybody

had reported to have undergone one or

the other problems.

Table 3.5: Distribution of respondents Sown seeds with irrigation and got rain

subsequently

Sowing with Irrigation and got rain subsequently Frequency Per cent

Yes 27 96.43

No 1 3.57

Total 28 100

Among the farmers who have sown

crops seeds with irrigation and

subsequently got the rain 17 farmers

(60.71 per cent) have reported that they

continued with the crop they sown

without bothering the outcome.

However, of the remaining 10

farmers (35.72 percent) had sown the

seed again after the failure of

germination of seeds. Among them, 5

farmers sown different types of seeds

and another 5 farmers (17.86 per cent)

decided to sow the same crop again after

the rains (Table No 3.6).

Table 3.6: Distribution of farmers by status of crop sown

Status of crop sown Frequency Per cent

Continued the crop 17 60.71

Changed the crop by sowing different type of seeds. 5 17.86

Sown the same type of seeds again 5 17.86


Total 28 100

Following are the some of the problems

reported by the farmers who had rains

after sowing the seed using the irrigation

facility. Table 3.7 reveals that 15

farmers (22.05 per cent) reported that

after sowing the seed with irrigation,

the seeds decayed due to water logging

from rain for more than 4 to 5 days.

Draining out the excess water was a

problem, the seeds start decaying

resulting in total loss. Another 14

farmers (20.58 per cent) reported that

due to water logging, the percentage of

sprouting was low which resulted in

Page 33

low yields. In addition, many reported

that they had undergone losses due to

rains immediately after spraying,

pesticides and also application of

fertilizers (39.70 per cent).

Table 3.7: Distribution of respondents by type of problem

Type of problem Frequency Per cent

Seed decay 15 22.05

Problems in sprouting 14 20.58

Mud covering the seed 10 14.70

Flowers decay 1 1.47

Loss of pesticide and Fertilizers 27 39.70


Total 68 100.00

Note: Multiple responses.

Through a few had changed the crops or

sown the same crop sown again after

rains, it was reported that 3 farmers

(10.71 per cent) had got less yield and

undergone a loss to the extent of 30 per

cent. Similarly, 14 farmers (50 per cent)

had reported that their loss was between

30 to 50 per cent as the yield was below

normal. Such a loss was between 51 to

80 per cent in case of 7 farmers (25 per

cent) and it was reported by 3 farmers

(10.71 per cent) that they did not get

anything and suffered 100 per cent loss

(Table3.8)

Table 3.8: Distribution of respondents by extent of loss undergone

Extent of loss undergone Respondent Per cent


Up to 30 per cent 3 10.71

31 to 50 per cent 14 50.00

51 to 80 per cent 7 25.00

100 per cent 3 10.71

Total 28 100

The loss of crop after sowing with

irrigation and application of fertilizer

and pesticide was common in the past.

Table 3.9 reveals that about 10 farmers

(34.48 per cent) had undergone loss for

about 2 to 3 times in the past. Similarly,

Page 34

9 farmers (31.03 per cent) had reported

that they underwent loss between 4 to 5

times and 7 farmers (24.14 per cent) had

reported that they faced such a situation

for more than 6 times in the past.

Table 3.9: Distribution of respondents by number of times affected prior to

Helpdesk services

Number times affected Frequency Per cent


Only once 1 3.45

2 to 3 times 10 34.48

4 to 5 times 9 31.03

More than 6 times 7 24.14

Total 29 100.00

From the analysis above it seems,

everybody is happy as they are receiving

help from the KSNDMC Helpdesk which

has enabled them to take appropriate

decisions. Table 3.10 reveals that 96.43

per cent of farmers reported that they

were not losing their crop or wasting the

pesticide or fertilizers after receiving the

services from KSNDMC.

Table 3.10: Respondents not affected/undergone loss after receiving the technical

advice from KSNDMC

Undergone loss Respondent Per cent

No 27 96.43


Total 28 100

The above analyses not only endorse the

general impressions of the people who

are receiving the technical advice from

KSNDMC Helpdesk but it also confirms

that farmers can make profits and reduce

losses by seeking information from

KSNDMC Helpdesk and by taking

decisions appropriately.

3.13: Level of Satisfaction

At the outset all respondents were

satisfied with the services rendered by the

KSNDMC, which enabled them to adopt

scientific methods while taking

agricultural decisions and thereby

increasing production with the reduced

costs.

Page 35

Page 36

A large majority (68.13 per cent) of

respondents rated the services of the

organization as ‘excellent’ followed by

24.18 per cent rated as ‘very good’. The

remaining 7.69 per cent of respondents

rated the services of the KSNDMC

organization as ‘good’ (Map 3.6)

Table 3.11: Correlations between the key variables and the level of satisfaction

Variables Level of satisfaction

Age of respondent -0.098 (0.355)

Educational level of respondent 0.073 (0.490)

Annual household income 0.222* (0.034)

Total land owned 0.015 (0.887)

Type of crops grown in dry land 0.066 (0.534)

Type of crops grown in irrigated land 0.057 (0.589)

Number of calls made 0.388** (0.000)

Duration of call 0.117 (0.268)

Note: The number of observations is 91. * indicates correlation is significant at the 5per cent

level. ** indicates correlation is significant at the 1per cent level. Probability levels of

significance for a two tailed test are given in parenthesis.

3.14: Correlations

Table 3.11 includes the correlations

between the variables pertaining to the

information gathered from the farmers

through telephonic questionnaires. Level

of satisfaction is considered to be the key

variable which is expected to be

influenced by a host of factors such as

income level of respondent, educational

level of respondent, type of crops grown

etc. Among all the variables considered in

our study, three factors stand out, viz;

number of calls made shows a very high

correlation with the level of satisfaction

(0.388) at the 1per cent level of

significance and a probability level of

significance higher than 0.05, which

indicates that the correlation is

significant. This indicates that the level of

satisfaction among the farmers seeking

the services of the Helpdesk is positively

and directly influenced by the number of

calls made. Secondly, the annual

household income variable is highly

correlated with the ‘level of satisfaction’

with a coefficient of 0.222 at the 5 per

cent significance level which is

statistically significant.

Page 37

Table 3.12: Distribution of sample respondents by their suggestions

Nature of Suggestions Respondent Per cent

No Comment 49 53.85

Extend the Services for 24X7 4 4.40

This service is enough 19 20.88

Gram level information needed 3 3.30

Daily SMS Required 2 2.20

Need forecasting monthly rainfall information 12 13.19

Need toll free telephone Service 2 2.20

Total 91 100

Page 38

CHAPTER 4: RESPONSE OF THE OFFICIALS

4.1: Introduction

As mentioned earlier in the

methodology, our efforts to get response

for the questionnaire sent by email to all

the stakeholders in Karnataka yielded

poor results. In spite of several

reminders, except 4 persons from media

and an equal number from the

bureaucracy there was no response from

others. As a last resort and after

elaborate discussions with the Director,

KSNDMC, we decided to call the

officials through telephone. Accordingly

we tried to contact 127 officials

constituting 45 Assistant Directors, 44

Tahsildars, 30 District collectors

(Deputy Commissioners), 3 Joint

Directors of Agriculture and 1 Associate

Director of Research apart from 4

persons from the electronic media (Table

4.1). Among them we were able to get

response from 105 officials including

media persons. There was no response

from others the remaining 22 persons

This shows that the response has been

more than 82.67 per cent.

Among the Tahsildars, it was 86.36 per

cent followed by Deputy Commissioners

with 80 per cent and Assistant Directors

with 73.33 per cent. All the Joint

Directors of Agriculture, representatives

from the media and Assistant Director of

Research responded to our calls. Those

of the mobiles which were switched off

even after calling them for more than

three times during different times of the

day were pertains to the Assistant

Director (4.44 per cent) and Deputy

Commissioners (3.33 per cent).

4.2 Receipt of Daily SMS and Other

Services

Among those who responded to our

queries, except 2 persons all others have

reported that they were in receipt of the

SMS, email messages of the information

sent by KSNDMC as alerts, forecasts and

reports. Of the total officials contacted,

majority (81.10 per cent) have reported

that they are receiving the rainfall data on

daily basis. (Table 4.1).

Page 39

Table 4.1: Distribution of sample respondents by receipt of the services from

KSNDMC

Receipt of the services from KSNDMC Frequency Per cent

Yes 103 98.09

No 2 1.90

Total 105 100

Table 4.2: Distribution of sample respondents by usefulness and continuation of the

Services from KSNDMC

Officials Is it useful for you

Total Yes Not Applicable No

Assistant Director 33 1 0 34

Tahsildar 38 0 1 39

District Commissioner 24 0 0 24

Joint director of agriculture 3 0 0 3

Media 4 0 0 4

Associate director of research 1 0 0 1

Total 103 1 1 105

Different officials have to take different

decisions based on the needs and

priorities of the situation. For example,

the Deputy Commissioner, being the head

of the district administration need to

attend the grievances of several people

including the farmers. In order to make

proper arrangements for the visits of VIP,

the DC needs to be appraised of climatic

conditions like the day’s temperature,

probability of rains, wind speed, etc.

Safety measures must be planned during

natural calamities like floods, cyclone,

drought, etc to mitigate the impact with

the precautionary measures. The

information from the KSNDMC comes in

handy to make proper decisions.

As far as the officials of the agricultural

department are concerned, several

officials reported that the information

from the KSNDMC as alerts and reports

directly influence the decisions of the day

to day functioning of the department. It

enables the agricultural officials to give

suggestions to the farmers to take up

agricultural operations, application of

fertilizers and pesticides. Also alert the

local fertilizer and pesticide dealers to

make necessary procurements of fertilizer

and pesticide along with the seeds to meet

the sowing season demand.

Page 40

With respect to the media, the

information not only forms a part of the

day to day publications but is also used to

alert the government to take proper

measures for the welfare of the citizens

and also information for personal safety.

Since the information provided by

KSNDMC facilitates to take proper

decisions, all the officials have reported

that the services should be continued.

Except 2.27 per cent of Tahsildars, all

other have reported that the services

provided by the KSNDMC were useful to

them.

The information provided by the

organization seems to be very important

to both the officials in the government as

well as to the persons from the media.

Table 4.3 shows that hundred per cent of

respondents endorsed that the information

sent by KSNDMC is vital and help to

take proper precautions and decisions not

only during emergencies, but also for day

to day administration. Hence everybody

reported that the services should be

continued.

4.3: PROBLEMS

A few problems were reported by the

officials. The main problem pertains to

the information sent as SMS to several

officials was not related to their present

place of work. It pertains to either their

earlier work place or prior to that.

However, the officials reported that they

will call KSNDMC whenever they need

information. On enquiry with the officials

of KSNDMC, it was found that the

concerned officials did not inform the

KSNDMC as soon as the officials get

transferred to a new place. The place of

transfer is important as it would enable

the organization to update the transfer

details especially the new place of work.

Similarly, the official or personal

telephone (Mobile) numbers registered

with KSNDMC should be reported to the

KSNDMC soon after transfer of staff.

Page 41

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Summary

Scientists and technocrats offer several

measures to mitigate impact of the natural

disasters. They also help the administration

to take proper rehabilitative measures to

comfort the affected population. Of late,

science and technology has offered several

inventions to forecast the occurrence of

such disasters well in advance such that the

concerned administration could take proper

measures and mitigate the adverse

implications of the natural disasters on

human population. In this direction, the


Monitoring Centre (KSNDMC) is

providing several services to the people

of Karnataka and the Government not

only to take timely and proactive steps to

prevent and get away from the sloth of

disaster caused by various natural

disasters but also enable the farmer to

improve the farm output and reduce the

cost of cultivation.

Disaster Management is multidisciplinary

and has complexity of information

sharing and reporting. It comprises

installation of field monitoring sensors -

weather, geological, hydrological,

collection of data on real time,

transmission of the same to a central

computational/analysis centre, data

processing, analysis, alert recognition,

simulation through appropriate

mathematical models, customized report

generation, dissemination of the

information through the alerts, reports

and advisories to the users.

The evaluation study formulated the

following twin objectives:

To analyze the perception of

beneficiaries and stakeholders

who use the various services

provided by the KSNDMC.

To suggest appropriate and

suitable measures to improve the

existing system.

An attempt was made to study the impact

of the services of the KSNDMC on

various beneficiaries and stakeholders

starting from the top government officials

to the farmers in the field. The study was

mainly based on telephonic interviews

and emails with the stakeholders by using

a structured questionnaire to collect the

quantitative data..

Page 42

The KSNDMC has provided about 122

telephone numbers of farmers who

approached the Helpdesk to seek the

assistance of its services. We tried to

approach all the farmers and tried calling

the numbers provided by them. Out of

122 numbers called, we were able to get

responses from 91 farmers.

The main source of information for

farmers and general public about the

services of KSNDMC organization was

through Media which includes News

Papers, Television and the Radio. Later

on, the information was spread across the

farmer community through their

friendship network and relatives, by the

officials of the Agricultural department

through neighbourhood gossips, etc. For

the officials and media it was through the

emails and the SMS sent by the

KSNDMC.

A large share (90 per cent) of farmers

who contacted the Helpdesk for

information had called the Helpdesk for

more than 5 times. Majority (89 per cent)

had discussions with KSNDMC Helpdesk

for about 2 minutes to 10 minutes. About

32 per cent of the sample farmers have

started to contact the KSNDMC Helpdesk

since 10 to 12 months followed by 29.69

per cent who were calling the KSNDMC

Helpdesk since more than a year. A large

majority (90.11 per cent) of respondents

approached the KSNDMC helpdesk to know

the possibility of rain during the next few

days (within two- three days).

About 38 per cent of respondents

reported that they had used the

information for taking a decision prior to

sowing the seed. Few farmers have

reported that they had to postpone the

sowing operations due to rain and few

others had took a decision to make

preparations for sowing based on the

information availed from the Helpdesk.

Similarly 26.37 per cent of respondents

have used the information prior to

irrigation decisions. Another 26.37 per

cent of respondents have used the

information to make preparation for

harvesting the crop and also for threshing.

Few farmers used it prior to applying

pesticides and fertilizers (13.19 per cent).

About 97 per cent of respondents have

shared the information either with other

farmers or with their friends and other

village members. About 46.16 per cent

reported that they shared the information

with friends and other farmers. They used

the information and accordingly several

of them had either postponed the sowing

operations and harvesting or both due to

rain or make preparations for sowing or

harvesting accordingly.

Page 43

Prior to the availability of the services

from the KSNDMC, several farmers

reported that they depended on traditional

knowledge for agricultural operations.

Several farmers reported that they had

rains several times in the past after

sowing the seed using the irrigation

facility. Since draining out the excess

water was a problem, the seeds start to

decay resulting in total loss. 50 per cent

of farmers reported that due to water

logging the percentage of germination

was low which resulted in low yields. In

addition, many reported that they had

undergone loss due to rains immediately

after spraying, pesticides and also

application of fertilizers (96.43 per cent).

Therefore, the information provided by

KSNDMC becomes quite useful.

The above analysis not only endorse the

general impressions of the people who

are receiving the technical advice from

KSNDMC Helpdesk but it also confirms

that farmers can make profits and reduce

losses by seeking information from

KSNDMC Helpdesk and taking decisions

appropriately. While farmers seek the

information from the KSNDMC, the

organization provides the information to

the bureaucracy, media, and other

research institutions and organizations.

Such information seems to be very

important to both the officials in the

government as well as to the persons

from the media. This is evident as cent

per cent of respondents endorsed that the

information sent by KSNDMC is vital

and help to take proper precautions and

decisions not only during emergencies,

but also for day to day administration.

Hence everybody reported that the

services should be continued.

The main problem reported by the

officials was that the information

provided by the KSNDMC to the officials

was not related to their present place of

work but pertains to the place of their

immediate transfer or of the earlier place

of work. The telephone (Mobile) numbers

registered with KSNDMC either official

or personal should be reported to the

KSNDMC soon after transfer of staff in

order to update the transfer details

especially the new place of work.

Updating of information about the change

in the mobile numbers is quintessential

for the use of information provided.

In executing its work in providing a

common platform to the various

stakeholders both across the government

officials at the district and taluk levels

and the farmers, the KSNDMC Helpdesk

facility has fared quite well with positive

response throughout. About 69 per cent

of the respondents have rated the services

Page 44

of the organization as ‘excellent’

followed by 24.18 per cent rated as ‘very

good’. The remaining 7.69 per cent of

respondents rated the services of the

KSNDMC organization as ‘good’.

5.2 Recommendations

Some of the suggestions arising out of the

discussions with the farmers and officials

are given below

If possible additional data on

technological options such as

temperature and humidity along with

the wind speed and cloud movement

to be supplemented as part of the

daily SMS.

The SMS facility to be extended to

the lower level field staff who work

at the Panchayat and Hobli level

with the information pertaining to

the particular Hobli and Panchayat

level. This could be achieved

through two or three layer

communication, one based at District

and another at Hobli level.

Like rainfall data, it would be useful

if the information (forecast)

regarding the probability of

occurrence of pests and diseases to

crops. Such information could be

provided by the Department of

Agriculture.

KSNDMC should send a proposal

to the GOK to provide mobile

phone numbers and the place of

transfer of officials, such that the

official receives the information of

the concerned place only.

In addition to the Hobli level

information, it would be useful if

the information pertains to an area

which falls under a particular

problem such as landslide, floods,

drought, cyclone, etc by labeling the

zone as “Flood Zone” or Cyclone

Zone”, which may cover more than

one taluk or district or and call them

as “Hot Spots”.

Expand the list of recipients to

include some peripheral

functionaries.

Phase out the traditional manual

rain gauges as telemetric rain

gauges provide quick information.

All officials concerned should be

provided with “Mobile Phones”

who use the KSNDMC services for

day to day administration and also

transfer the information to the

general public.

Page 45

APPENDIX

Appendix.1: Official responses

Is it useful for you Frequency Per cent

Yes 103 81.10

Not Applicable 23 18.11

No 1 0.79

Total 127 100.00

Appendix.2: Additional farmers’ data

Getting information after any problem Frequency Per cent

No 27 29.67


Total 91 100

Page 46

Appendix.3: Distribution of respondents’ by household income (Rs. in Lakhs)

District Name Not Mentioned 0-0.5 0.5-1 1-2 2-5 Above 5 TOTAL

Bagalkot 2 2 1 0 1 2 8

Bangaloreurban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bangalorerural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Belgaum 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Bellary 0 1 0 0 1 0 2

Bidar 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Bijapur 2 1 0 1 1 1 6

Chamarajanagar 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Chikkaballapura 2 0 0 0 1 0 3

Chikmagalur 2 0 2 1 1 0 6

Chitradurga 4 1 0 0 0 0 5

Dakshinakannada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Davanagere 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

Dharwad 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Gadag 4 2 0 0 4 1 11

Gulbarga 1 3 0 1 0 0 5

Hassan 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Haveri 4 0 0 2 2 1 9

Kodagu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kolar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koppal 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Mandya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysore 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Raichur 0 1 0 1 0 0 2

Ramanagara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shimoga 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

Tumkur 2 2 0 1 2 1 8

Udupi 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Uttarakannada 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Yadgir 2 0 1 3 2 1 9

Total 28 20 6 13 16 8 91

Page 47

Appendix.4: Distribution of respondents’ by type of land Owned

District Name Landless Marginal Small Semi Medium Medium Large Total

Bagalkot 0 1 0 2 2 3 8

Bangaloreurban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bangalorerural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Belgaum 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Bellary 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

Bidar 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

Bijapur 0 0 0 1 2 3 6

Chamarajanagar 0 0 0 1 0 1 2

Chikkaballapura 0 0 1 0 2 0 3

Chikmagalur 0 0 1 0 4 1 6


Dakshinakannada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Dharwad 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Gadag 0 0 1 1 1 8 11

Gulbarga 0 0 0 1 3 1 5

Hassan 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Haveri 0 1 0 4 1 3 9

Kodagu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kolar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koppal 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Mandya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysore 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Raichur 0 0 1 0 0 1 2

Ramanagara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shimoga 0 0 0 1 1 0 2

Tumkur 0 2 2 2 1 1 8

Udupi 0 1 1 0 0 0 2

Uttarakannada 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Yadgir 0 0 2 0 0 7 9

Total 1 6 12 17 22 33 91

Page 48

Appendix.5: Distribution of respondents’ source of information about KSNDMC

District Name Radio TV News Friends Relatives Agricultural Dept. Friends

Relatives Total

Bagalkot 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 8

Bangaloreurban 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bangalorerural 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Belgaum 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Bellary 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Bidar 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Bijapur 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 6

Chamarajanagar 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2

Chikkaballapura 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 3

Chikmagalur 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 6

Chitradurga 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 5

Dakshinakannada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Davanagere 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Dharwad 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

Gadag 0 2 4 1 2 2 0 11

Gulbarga 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 5

Hassan 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Haveri 0 1 3 4 0 1 0 9

Kodagu 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kolar 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koppal 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2

Mandya 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysore 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Raichur 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

Ramanagara 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shimoga 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2

Tumkur 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 8

Udupi 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2

Uttarakannada 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

Yadgir 1 1 0 6 1 0 0 9

Total 5 8 38 26 7 6 1 91

Page 49

Appendix.6: Distribution of number of respondents’ contacted KSNDMC

District Name No of Respondents

Bagalkot 8

Bangaloreurban 0

Bangalorerural 0

Belgaum 1

Bellary 2

Bidar 2

Bijapur 6

Chamarajanagar 2

Chikkaballapura 3

Chikmagalur 6

Chitradurga 5

Dakshinakannada 0

Davanagere 1

Dharwad 2

Gadag 11

Gulbarga 5

Hassan 1

Haveri 9

Kodagu 0

Kolar 0

Koppal 2

Mandya 0

Mysore 1

Raichur 2

Ramanagara 0

Shimoga 2

Tumkur 8

Udupi 2

Uttarakannada 1

Yadgir 9

Total 91

Page 50

Appendix.7: Distribution of time frame of information sought from KSNDMC by

respondents

District Name 3 Months 4-6Months 7-9 Months 10-12 Months More Than A Year Total

Bagalkot 0 2 0 5 1 8

Bangaloreurban 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bangalorerural 0 0 0 0 0 0

Belgaum 0 0 0 1 0 1

Bellary 0 0 0 0 2 2

Bidar 0 0 0 2 0 2

Bijapur 1 1 1 2 1 6

Chamarajanagar 1 0 0 1 0 2

Chikkaballapura 0 1 0 1 1 3

Chikmagalur 1 3 1 1 0 6

Chitradurga 1 1 1 1 1 5

Dakshinakannada 0 0 0 0 0 0

Davanagere 0 1 0 0 0 1

Dharwad 0 0 1 1 0 2

Gadag 0 1 1 3 6 11

Gulbarga 1 1 0 3 0 5

Hassan 0 0 0 0 1 1

Haveri 1 1 0 1 6 9

Kodagu 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kolar 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koppal 0 0 0 1 1 2

Mandya 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysore 0 0 0 1 0 1

Raichur 0 1 1 0 0 2

Ramanagara 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shimoga 0 1 0 0 1 2

Tumkur 2 1 0 5 0 8

Udupi 1 0 0 0 1 2

Uttarakannada 0 1 0 0 0 1

Yadgir 0 3 1 0 5 9

Total 9 19 7 29 27 91

Page 51

Appendix.8: Distribution of Respondents’ Nature of Information Sought from

KSNDMC

District Name Rainfall Cyclone Rain-Temperature Rainfall

Cyclone Floods Rainfall Total

Bagalkot 7 0 1 0 0 8

Bangalore urban 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bangalore rural 0 0 0 0 0 0

Belgaum 1 0 0 0 0 1

Bellary 2 0 0 0 0 2

Bidar 2 0 0 0 0 2

Bijapur 5 0 0 1 0 6

Chamarajanagar 1 0 0 0 1 2

Chikkaballapura 3 0 0 0 0 3

Chikmagalur 6 0 0 0 0 6

Chitradurga 5 0 0 0 0 5

Dakshinakannada 0 0 0 0 0 0

Davanagere 1 0 0 0 0 1

Dharwad 2 0 0 0 0 2

Gadag 8 1 2 0 0 11

Gulbarga 5 0 0 0 0 5

Hassan 1 0 0 0 0 1

Haveri 7 0 2 0 0 9

Kodagu 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kolar 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koppal 2 0 0 0 0 2

Mandya 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysore 1 0 0 0 0 1

Raichur 2 0 0 0 0 2

Ramanagara 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shimoga 2 0 0 0 0 2

Tumkur 7 0 1 0 0 8

Udupi 2 0 0 0 0 2

Uttarakannada 1 0 0 0 0 1

Yadgir 9 0 0 0 0 9

Total 82 1 6 1 1 91

Page 52

Appendix.9: Distribution of Respondents by Usage of Information Sought from

KSNDMC

District Name Crop

Sowing

Providing

Irrigation

Rainfall

and

Temperature

Chemicals

to Spray

and Fertilizers

Street

Play

Brick

Making Total

Bagalkote 5 1 1 1 0 0 8

Belgaum 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Bellary 1 0 0 0 1 0 2

Bidar 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

Bijapur 2 3 1 0 0 0 6

Chamarajanagara 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Chickaballapura 1 1 0 1 0 0 3

Chickmagalur 2 3 1 0 0 0 6



Dharwad 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Gadag 9 2 0 0 0 0 11

Gulbarga 4 1 0 0 0 0 5

Hassan 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Haveri 5 1 1 2 0 0 9

Karwar 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Koppal 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

Mysore 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

Raichur 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Shimoga 1 0 1 0 0 0 2

Tumkur 3 1 0 3 0 1 8

Udupi 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

Yadgir 5 2 0 2 0 0 9

Total 53 19 6 11 1 1 91

Page 53

Appendix.10: Distribution of Respondents’ Level of Satisfaction about Services

of KSNDMC

District Name Good Very Good Excellent Total

Bagalkot 1 0 7 8

Bangaloreurban 0 0 0 0

Bangalorerural 0 0 0 0

Belgaum 0 0 1 1

Bellary 0 0 2 2

Bidar 0 0 2 2

Bijapur 0 2 4 6

Chamarajanagar 0 1 1 2

Chikkaballapura 0 0 3 3

Chikmagalur 0 4 2 6

Chitradurga 1 1 3 5

Dakshinakannada 0 0 0 0

Davanagere 0 0 1 1

Dharwad 1 0 1 2

Gadag 1 5 5 11

Gulbarga 0 3 2 5

Hassan 1 0 0 1

Haveri 0 3 6 9

Kodagu 0 0 0 0

Kolar 0 0 0 0

Koppal 0 0 2 2

Mandya 0 0 0 0

Mysore 0 0 1 1

Raichur 0 0 2 2

Ramanagara 0 0 0 0

Shimoga 0 0 2 2

Tumkur 2 2 4 8

Udupi 0 0 2 2

Uttarakannada 0 0 1 1

Yadgir 0 1 8 9

Total 7 22 62 91

Page 54

Appendix 11: Questionnaire for Officials

Are you receiving rainfall data as SMS on your mobile being disseminated from

KSNDMC?

Yes

No

How do you rate the programme at SL no 1?

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Unsatisfactory

Are you receiving high intensity rainfall alerts / very heavy rainfall alerts / heavy

rainfall alerts?

Yes

No

How do you rate the information at Sl. No. 3 on a scale of 1 to 10? ( )

Are you receiving the rainfall forecasts details?

Yes

No

Are you receiving the severe weather warnings from KSNDMC?

Yes

No

Are you receiving daily reports of KSNDMC?

Yes

No

Your overall assessment of the services of KSNDMC

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Page 55

Appendix 12: Questionnaire for Farmers

Respondent Name ……………………………………………….

Village

Hobali

Taluk

District

Gender Male Female

Age(year) 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 > 50

Educational

Background Primary High

School Diploma Graduate

Others

Number of family

members 0-5 5-10 Above 10

Income(Annually)

Total Land owned (in Hectares)

a. Marginal

(Less than 1h)

b. Small

(1. to 2.)

c. Semi-Medium

(2. to 4.)

d. Medium

(4. to 10.)

e. Large

(> 10)

Type of Ownership

Single Joint

From where did you get to know about Help Desk

Radio TV News Friends Govt or NGOs

How many calls have you made till now?.........................

How long you are the getting information from Helpdesk

a.3 Months b. 6 Months c. 9 Months d. 1 Years e. > 1 year

Regarding which issue you generally contact the Helpdesk?

Drought flood Rainfall Earthquake Landslide cyclone Temperature Tsunami

winds

Annually how many crops do you sow in the land

1 2 3 > 3

Page 56

How much time will you spend to take information from the department over phone

(minute)

0-5 5-10 10-15 >15

What is the satisfaction level from this department

poor Ok good excellent

Among whom your sharing the information which is provided by the department

Neighbors Friends Village

Member

Relatives Others

Any suggestion you would like to give for this Department

……………………………………………

Has he implemented the services?

Was it useful for him?

By sharing the information has the farmer implemented the same?

What kind of crops will he grow, food or commercial?

How much time did you spend in connecting to a phone line?

What was the initial reaction from the department?

Did you get sufficient time to discuss with the concerned person?

Page 57

Appendix 13: List of Farmers Contacted

SL NO DATE CONTACT NUMBERS REMARKS

1 8/2/2012 9164825449 Response

2 8/2/2012 9632985523 Response

3 8/2/2012 9964097202 Doesn't exist

4 8/2/2012 9591347771 Response

5 8/2/2012 7760000370 Response

6 9/2/2012 9902338933 Response

7 9/2/2012 8105121589 No response

8 9/2/2012 9535442175 Response

9 9/2/2012 8748878795 Response

10 10/2/2012 9740489134 Response

11 10/2/2012 9008856357 Response

12 10/2/2012 9611189594 Response

13 10/2/2012 9480749779 Switched off

14 10/2/2012 9880088984 Response

15 10/2/2012 9844232134 Response

16 10/2/2012 7411508292 Switch off

17 10/2/2012 9916610439 Response

18 10/2/2012 9620491157 Temporarily out of service

19 10/2/2012 9980784788 No response

20 10/2/2012 9980957389 Not Reachable

21 10/2/2012 9008895290 response

22 10/2/2012 9844882733 Not Reachable

23 10/2/2012 9972679578 Response

24 10/2/2012 9591934140 Response

25 10/2/2012 9972679578 Response

26 14/2/2012 9663670411 Response

27 14/2/2012 94481137115 wrong number

Page 58

28 14/2/2012 9902472630 Response

29 14/02/2012 9880750148 Response

30 14/02/2012 9901163479 Response

31 14/02/2012 9945221791 Response

32 14/02/2012 9980508584 Response

33 14/02/2012 9481349497 Response

34 14/02/2012 9741798555 Response

35 14/02/2012 9964065021 No response

36 14/02/2012 8867226961 Response

37 14/02/2012 9901100408 Response

38 21/02/2012 9900776432 Response

39 21/02/2012 9743067390 Response

40 21/02/2012 9448641806 Response

41 21/02/2012 9972777759 Response

42 21/02/2012 9448576703 Response

43 21/02/2012 9481349497 Response

44 23/02/2012 9743054333 Response

45 23/02/2012 08970-464584 Response

46 23/02/2012 9901003968 Response

47 23/02/2012 9449693547 Response

48 23/02/2012 9844150509 Switched off

49 23/02/2012 9742054918 Response

50 23/02/2012 9901780986 Response

51 23/02/2012 9449945322 No response

52 23/02/2012 08362-793939 Response

53 23/02/2012 9591644184 Response

54 24/02/2012 9448337115 Response

55 24/02/2012 9972324802 Not reachable

56 24/02/2012 9886067899 Temporarily out service

57 24/02/2012 9916603174 Response

58 24/02/2012 9164204002 Doesn’t exist

59 24/02/2012 9739441111 Response

60 24/02/2012 9740424170 Response

61 24/02/2012 9448100754 Response

62 24/02/2012 9740312530 Response

63 24/02/2012 08197-787759 Response

Page 59

64 24/02/2012 9480073070 Response

65 27/02/2012 9972784144 Switched off

66 27/02/2012 9902836214 Response

67 27/02/2012 9902451732 Response

68 27/02/2012 9611035005 Response

69 27/02/2012 8971366609 Response

70 27/02/2012 9731249102 Response

71 1/3/2012 9448435232 Response

72 1/3/2012 9731961059 Response

73 1/3/2012 9480148004 Response

74 1/3/2012 9844998258 Response

75 1/3/2012 9901002387 No response

76 1/3/2012 9845111344 Doesn’t exist

77 1/3/2012 9900762644 No response

78 1/3/2012 8971169841 Response

79 2/3/2012 8869605710 Doesn’t exist

80 2/3/2012 9845383844 Response

81 2/3/2012 9141402082 Switched off

82 2/3/2012 9741830311 No response

83 2/3/2012 9742633496 No response

84 2/3/2012 9980428271 Response

85 2/3/2012 9945209921 Response

86 2/3/2012 9620411019 Response

87 2/3/2012 9448670060 Response

88 2/3/2012 9880862303 Response

89 2/3/2012 948088845 wrong number

90 2/3/2012 9845235439 Response

91 2/3/2012 08384-272602 Response

92 27/3/2012 8277659282 Not reachable

93 27/3/2012 9663752854 Response

94 27/3/2012 9886692829 Response

95 27/3/2012 9845419011 Response

96 27/3/2012 8722709977 Response

97 29/3/2012 9480378229 Response

98 29/3/2012 9880498034 No response

99 29/3/2012 8181254635 Doesn’t exist

Page 60

100 29/3/2012 8861845342 Response

101 29/3/2012 9242230017 Response

102 29/3/2012 8722377148 Response

103 29/3/2012 9538570454 Response

104 29/3/2012 9008075691 Response

105 29/3/2012 9902589492 Response

106 29/3/2012 9535060096 Response

107 29/3/2012 9945320530 Response

108 29/3/2012 9972570721 Response

109 30/3/2012 8272225732 Doesn’t exist

110 30/3/2012 9731249102 Response

111 30/3/2012 9620993042 Response

112 30/3/2012 9620880095 no response

113 30/3/2012 9743470798 Response

114 30/3/2012 9742633496 Response

115 30/3/2012 9480417797 Doesn’t exist

116 30/3/2012 8762469753 Response

117 2/4/2012 9448211179 Response

118 2/4/2012 9449246881 Response

119 2/4/2012 8722709977 Response

120 2/4/2012 9901573698 Response

121 2/4/2012 9845227597 Response

122 3/4/2012 9742672902 No response

Date post:	22-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doandiep
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

Impact Evaluation of KSNDMC Help Desk Assessment Report.pdf · Page v Table 2.4: Distribution of...

Documents