Financial Support, Financial Wellbeing, Well-being
Conditions
Brief summary
The main objective of the project is to sustain bilateral scientific research regarding: Research regarding mountain products: cropping and benefits for the USA and Canada - knowledge shares with global mountain entrepreneurs. Activities: A1. Project management; A2. Research regarding mountain products health benefits from the USA, Canada and worldwide; A3. Research regarding mountain products in the USA, Canada and worldwide; A4. Research regarding mountain area for mountain products crops from the USA, Canada and worldwide; A5. Land acquisition and sustainability in the USA, Canada and worldwide. Project 002/01.04.2022. Date: 04/01/2022-09/15/2025 (CBM International University), held in Sierra Blanca, Hudspeth Texas, USA; Cherokee Village, Fulton Arkansas, USA; Lynn Lake, Manitoba, Canada (17655 USD).
Interventions
None listed
Sponsors
Covaci Brindusa
Study design
Observational model
ECOLOGIC_OR_COMMUNITY
Time perspective
CROSS_SECTIONAL
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
21 Years to No maximum
Inclusion criteria
* Persons consuming mountain products * Persons visiting mountain regions * Persons using all types of services in mountain area * No others inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
* No children * No persons under 21 years old
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Achievement of external funding objectives | 36 months | The proportion of respondents who reported achieving their funding objectives, based on Question 13 of the study survey. Respondents could select Yes or No. \[1-2\] |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Recommendation of external funding to others | 36 months | The proportion of respondents who would recommend external funding to other people, assessed using Question 11 of the study survey. Responses were categorized as Yes or No. \[1-2\] |
| Recovery of the full amount requested for financing | 36 months | The proportion of respondents reporting recovery of the full amount requested for financing, assessed using Question 14 of the study survey. Responses were categorized as Yes or No. \[1-2\] |
| Perceived needs for improvement of external funding | 36 months | Respondents' reported advantages and disadvantages of external funding and their perceived needs and suggestions for improving the financing of external funds, based on the open-ended responses to Questions 12 and 15 of the study. \[1-2\] |
| Source of first information about external funds | 36 months | The source through which respondents first learned about external funds, based on Question 1 of the study survey. Response options included television, radio, newspapers, magazines, internet or website, friends or relatives, and other sources. Results are reported as the number and proportion of respondents for each response category. \[1-2\] |
| Characteristics of external funding accessed | 36 months | Characteristics of the external funding accessed by respondents, assessed using Questions 2 through 7 of the study survey. Variables included duration of use, contracting institution, type of financing, subtype of financing, priority axis, and accessed funding measure. Results were reported according to the response categories for each variable. \[1-2\] |
| Perceived quality of external funding application compared with other financing | 36 months | Respondents' assessment of the quality of the application of funding compared with other types of funding, assessed using Question 8 of the study survey. Responses were recorded on an ordinal five-category scale ranging from Much worse to Much better. \[1-2\] |
| Importance of factors considered when choosing an external grant | 36 months | The importance assigned by respondents to factors considered when choosing an external grant, assessed using Question 10 of the study survey. Factors included application quality, co-financing, need, cost-benefit ratio, and familiarity with the desired funding measure. Each factor was ranked from 1 (least important) to 5 (most important). \[1-2\] |
| Overall perceived quality of implementation of external funds | 36 months | Respondents' overall assessment of the quality of implementation of external funds, assessed using Question 9 of the study survey. Responses were recorded using the ordinal response categories provided in the survey. \[1-2\] |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed