CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION

Evaluating the resilience of forest dependent

communities in Central India by combining the
sustainable livelihoods framework and the
cross scale resilience analysis
Alark Saxena1,*, Burak Guneralp2, Robert Bailis 3, Gary Yohe4 and
Chadwick Oliver1
1
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven CT-06511, USA
2
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas TX 77840, USA
3
Stockholm Environment Institute-US Center, Somerville MA 02144-1224, USA
4
Wesleyan University, Middleton, Connecticut CT06459, USA

mitigation and adaptation strategies to address it 2,3. The

Resilience has moved from being a peripheral ecologi-
cal concept to a central goal, in the development dis- resilience approach has been proposed to prioritize
course. While the concept has become popular, the vulnerable areas for focused adaptation efforts around
operationalizing resilience has been difficult. Many the world. However, resilience also proves difficult to
frameworks have been proposed to operationalize re- measure, a characteristic which limits its utility in the
silience but no common framework has been agreed implementation of adaptation programming4–6. To address
upon. The present article demonstrates a step by step this challenge, the present article offers a novel frame-
method to operationalize livelihood resilience analysis, work for measuring the resilience of local livelihoods.
for communities that are affected by climate change Climate change will affect the attainment of poverty
by taking the case of rural household livelihoods in eradication and environmental sustainability, two Millen-
villages around Ratapani Wildlife Sanctuary in Central nium Development Goals (MDGs) which are also antici-
India. The article combines the Sustainable Livelihood
pated to play a role in the Sustainable Development Goals
Framework (SLF) with the Cross Scale Resilience
Analysis (CSRA), as a way to operationalize resilience. (SDGs). The Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF)
The CSRA is found to be simple, systematic and appli- has been proposed to understand the linkages between
cable in diverse contexts. The systematic and holistic livelihoods and the environment7–10; however, it has been
asset, process and institution-based analysis under the criticized for its inability to address large scale issues
SLF, supports the CSRA by defining the system and such as global warming and environmental degradation 11.
identifying associated important shocks that affect the The use of resilience in the current context has gained
system. Through the analysis, it was realized that the momentum in the climate change debate, although it has
impact of shifts in government policies on rural liveli- been in existence since 1973. Operationalizing the con-
hoods is much greater than the impacts of climate cepts of resilience would greatly benefit the development
change. The livelihood is worst affected when the shift sector. Of the many frameworks proposed4–6,12,13, four-
in government policies coincides with impacts of cli-
step cross scale resilience analysis 14,15 provides a simple
mate change. The article argues that combining the
SLF with the CSRA can provide a standardized and systematic method to operationalize resilience.
method for livelihood resilience analysis of poor natu- Meanwhile, the SLF is a familiar tool to development
ral-resource dependent communities in developing organizations, having been used since the 1990’s7,10,11. It
countries. Handling the dynamic nature of these com- provides a clear and comprehensive method to describe a
plex adaptive social-ecological systems in the resil- local livelihood system, its processes, and the shocks that
ience analysis should be the next goal to tackle. can affect it. Combining the strengths of the SLF and re-
silience concepts will greatly benefit the development
Keywords: Adaptation, central India, climate change, sector in tackling the joint challenges of poverty and cli-
resilience, rural livelihood. mate change.
This study pilots a systematic method to operationalize
Introduction resilience analysis by integrating two generic frame-
CLIMATE change is predicted to have severe implications works, i.e. Cross Scale Resilience Analysis (CSRA)14 and
on natural and social sectors1, and there are merits in both improved SLF7,10,16. The methodology is evaluated by
taking the case of household livelihoods of a rural village
*For correspondence. (e-mail: [Link]@[Link]) panchayat in central India.

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1195

 SPECIAL SECTION:

Resilience and the sustainable livelihood definition for ‘livelihood’ is: ‘A livelihood comprises the
framework capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living. A
The concept of resilience has moved from being a periph- livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and re-
eral concept in the field of ecology to being proposed as a cover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its
central goal in the fields of sustainability, disaster-risk capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natu-
reduction and adaptation 1,4,12,17–20. There are many defini- ral resource base.’46
tions of resilience that are available and used by different It has been argued45 that HHs have access to a portfolio
organizations. We incorporate the definition of social- of tangible and intangible assets and make decisions on
ecological resilience from the Resilience Alliance21 as: (i) the use of this portfolio based on their livelihood goals,
the amount of change the system can undergo and still re- which could be as diverse as improving their diets to
tain the same controls on function and structure, or still building social support networks. The strategy that the
be in the same state, within the same domain of attrac- HH implements depends upon its use of the portfolio of
tion; (ii) the degree to which the system is capable of options available, and the HH’s capacity to find liveli-
self-organization; and (iii) The ability to build and hood opportunities. This further depends on number of
increase the capacity for learning. Frameworks for on- characteristics internal to HH, including HH composition,
the-ground and policy-relevant resilience research and as well as external social-ecological and economic vari-
management have been proposed by multiple authors22–31. ables7,46,47.
However, due to a diversity of sectors and issues in In recognition of the fact that HHs construct their live-
which the concept of resilience is being applied, a com- lihoods based on a number of complex socio-political and
mon operational framework is still not agreed upon 26. The ecological factors, various development organizations
current article presents a novel framework for integrating have tried to develop simplified frameworks to better
CSRA and SLF as useful methods for livelihood resil- understand them. The livelihood framework is a tool to
ience analysis. conduct livelihood analysis48. It defines the scope and
provides the foundation for analysis, identifies objectives
and appropriate interventions to support livelihoods, and
Resilience analysis
becomes the shared point of reference for all who are
concerned with supporting livelihoods, thus enabling
Resilience analysis tools can be categorized into forward-
complementarity of interventions and tradeoffs between
looking and retrospective frameworks 32. Studies based on
outcomes to be assessed.
retrospective frameworks33–39 look for evidence that past
While the livelihoods framework is a widely accepted
community-based natural resource management systems
tool for development research and intervention, it also
have (or have not) increased their ability to absorb
has limitations. It has been pointed out that livelihood
change, self-organize, innovate, experiment and learn.
approaches have been unable to incorporate global eco-
Such frameworks describe and explain past process of
nomic, political and environmental changes11. SLF pro-
adaptation and transformation. They draw upon concepts
vides a comprehensive snapshot of the variables and
from social learning, social networks, adaptive management
associated dynamics of a given person’s, household’s, or
and adaptive governance in social-ecological systems.
community’s livelihood in a particular region, at a par-
Meanwhile, forward-looking frameworks are focused
ticular time. While the snapshot provides a good under-
on predicting or increasing the buffering capacity of the
standing of various livelihood options used by a local
social-ecological system to absorb change in the future.
HH, the framework is unable to recognize the dynamics
Studies based on such frameworks4,5,14,15,22,29–31,40–42 have
of factors that work in tandem and influence each other
their roots in engineering and ecology and are focused on
over time. Limited understanding of the dynamic nature
defining and modelling natural resource management sys-
of livelihood and the factors that influence it, reduces the
tems in quantitative terms, developing measurable indica-
ability to bring more effective solutions that can with-
tors of resilience, and contributing to management plans.
stand the test of time.
Given these shortcomings, subsequent studies16,49–51
Sustainable livelihood framework have proposed newer frameworks that include power,
politics and governance. It is further argued that, moving
Households (HHs) show the potential to bridge the forward, the livelihood framework should incorporate the
micro-level individualistic behaviour with the macro- issues of knowledge, politics, scale and dynamics
level political economy of development43. The focus on between various actors11. Incorporation of these would
livelihood comes from the recognition (both in policy and allow a better understanding of how local livelihoods are
research), that a majority of HHs and especially poor impacted by dynamic changes over a given period of
HHs, do not depend upon single income generating time, as well as, how local communities manage and
activities for their sustenance44,45. A commonly quoted adapt to changes.
1196 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION

While knowledge can be incorporated as an element of political capital. The issues can also be dealt in some part
‘human assets’ measured by the currently existing sus- through the institutions and processes within the SLF.
tainable livelihoods framework, the issues of scale and The following sections describe the conceptual integra-
dynamics are more challenging to integrate into the cur- tion of sustainable livelihood framework with four steps
rent framework, and require a different approach. The use of CSRA.
of complex system modelling techniques can allow
researchers to analyse both concrete livelihood assets and Step 1: Resilience of what: Step 1 of resilience analysis
larger issues of scale, dynamics and governance. Al- begins with defining the social-ecological system of in-
though such an analysis is outside the scope of this arti- terest. It defines the boundaries of the system and the
cle, the framework reported here is the first step towards scales of influence that affect the system. This is also the
our larger project of applying system dynamics modelling step to understand the major dynamics between various
to the analysis of household vulnerability and resilience actors that are present in and affect the system. Using
to climate change52. local, traditional knowledge and historical analysis, we
can understand how the system arrived to its current state.
We can thus determine the main drivers of past and pre-
Conceptual and operational framework sent social and ecological dynamics.
SLF is well placed to describe and define the state of a
Both the livelihood framework11 and resilience analysis53 system by looking at the past and present states of vari-
are important and well-known approaches for analysing ous system assets. It allows for a systematic appreciation
complex social-ecological systems. In the context of cli- of local conditions, and of the small- and large-scale
mate change adaptation, where there is a need to analyse drivers that affect them. The framework also allows for a
the impact of climate stress on poor communities around systematic understanding of the policies, institutions and
the world, there are valuable insights that one can gain processes that influence the system. Finally the frame-
from working with both the approaches simultaneously. work allows for both a qualitative and quantitative under-
While the livelihood framework takes a holistic approach standing of how communities and households construct
to recognize the multiplicity of actors, strategies and out- and understand their livelihoods.
comes11 in a given system, the resilience framework com-
fortably handles the issues of multi-scale and actor Step 2: Resilience to what: Step 2 focuses on identify-
dynamics. The detailed, multi-actor, strategy- and out- ing the key unpredictable and uncontrollable drivers of
come-conscious livelihood approach, focused on complex system behaviour, as well as, stakeholders’ vision for the
rural systems can be strengthened by the resilience of future, and possible future contrasting public policies.
social-ecological approach that recognizes feedbacks, Thus, the step comes up with 3–5 plausible future scenar-
multi-scale, multi-actor and temporal dynamics. Thus, the ios through stakeholder participation, and identifies
resilience approach can essentially provide the next step cross-scale issues that might contribute to unpredictabil-
to a more thorough and holistic livelihood analysis. Simi- ity.
larly, SLF can provide a structured way to carry out resil- With its focus on assets, seasonal variabilities, policies,
ience analysis by providing a holistic method that and institutions, SLF provides a systematic way of ana-
accounts for a variety of assets, policy and institutions lysing the shocks that affect or can possibly affect local
that govern them, local processes, the seasonality of ac- communities. It also allows understanding of the inter-
tivities, and the various livelihood strategies that define connections between various assets, policies and institu-
the survivability of local communities. tions and how communities utilize these interconnections
The present research focuses on the forward-looking to sustain themselves. Through these approaches, SLF of-
resilience analysis approach. The research will use fers an opportunity to aggregate and analyse complex sets
CSRA14 which is an improvement over the 4-step resil- of information about sources of uncertainty, in a manage-
ience analysis15. The modified forward-looking frame- able and comprehensible way.
work is simple, systematic and broad enough to engage Through this systematic analysis, major shocks affect-
with a variety of systems and interests in the development ing the system can be easily identified and prioritized
sector. The framework also allows for incorporation of a based on their frequency, severity, extent, and the level of
variety of techniques that might suit the needs of different threat perceived by local communities. The identification
studies. and analysis of these uncontrollable and unpredictable
CSRA is supported by an improved SLF framework16 shocks (as per the community’s perceptions), is important
that incorporates the asset of power in the overall analy- for understanding community resilience.
sis. Addressing these challenges11, the study argues that
knowledge can be incorporated in the human capital ele- Step 3: Resilience analysis: Resilience analysis is con-
ment of the SLF, whereas the issues of power, politics ducted on the identified shocks and stressors. Based on
and governance can be engaged with the incorporation of the most important shocks and stressors identified in the
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1197
 SPECIAL SECTION:

system, the analysis is done by creating 3–5 scenarios sociated to assets, policies, institutions and seasonalities
that are considered to be most likely. Each developed for Step 2 of the CSRA. The third step of CSRA calls for
scenario is a combination of important shocks and stress- resilience analysis. For the third step, major risks identi-
ors in a particular state (favourable/unfavourable). These fied during Step 2 by SLF analysis are prioritized through
scenarios are developed based on interactions with local stakeholder consultations. The combinations of these
stakeholders, policy makers and subject experts to arrive risks are then developed for scenario analysis. Through
to the most inclusive and realistic understanding of chal- scenario analysis, we examined the level and extent of
lenges the system faces at its level. The scenarios thus exposure of various livelihood activities, to the combined
developed, allow for identification of the most plausible impacts of different risks, ascertained through scenarios.
conditions under which a system should be tested for its This further determined vulnerability of the overall sys-
resilience. tem, and provided a clear picture of its resilience.
The social-ecological system of interest can then be Data was collected using both qualitative and quantita-
analysed to understand its ability to handle such scenar- tive techniques. Qualitative techniques like focus-group
ios. For the purpose of this study, we evaluate resilience discussions, participatory rural appraisals and semi-
as the extent of impact of a shock on livelihoods, and the structured interviews, were conducted with various stake-
ability of village households to recover from such an holders, such as government officials, political leaders,
impact. Such an analysis can be done both quantitatively businessmen, village members, elders and local NGO
and qualitatively. The ability of SLF to organize the representatives, to ascertain important livelihood drivers.
complexity of information in a systematic way, also Oral histories were also collected from village elders to
allows for a step-by-step and careful analysis of the abi- get a historical perspective. Finally, quantitative house-
lity of a system to respond to scenarios. hold socio-economic data was collected through census
of 319 households within 6 villages in the village
Step 4: Resilience management: Resilience management panchayat, for four consecutive years, i.e. 2009–2012.
involves stakeholders’ evaluation of the process of resil- The survey data were analysed to evaluate the percentage
ience analysis, as well as the policy and management contribution of various livelihood activities to an average
outcomes that such analysis generates. Step 4 requires household’s income.
on-the-ground consultation for policy implementation. For scenario analysis, major shocks (high likelihood
Due to the scope of the project reported here, this re- and high impact) that can affect livelihoods (associated to
search article is limited to demonstrating the complemen- various assets, institutions and process), were identified
tarity of CSRA and SLF for operationalizing resilience and ranked through the Strength Weakness Opportunity
analysis. and Threat (SWOT) analysis, conducted under focus-
group discussions. The top three most likely shocks were
then combined, to create likely scenarios through inter-
Methodology: Operationalizing resilience
views with various stakeholders and resident experts. The
analysis in central India
percentage of income (data collected through survey),
exposed to combined risks under different scenarios, was
This study seeks to understand the extent to which liveli-
then considered to be vulnerable, suggesting vulnerability
hoods of communities will be affected in different future
of local households under various scenarios.
scenarios and whether rural households can maintain
current livelihoods for their sustenance. For the purpose
of this analysis, a village panchayat system (social- Operationalizing resilience analysis: the case of
ecological system) that was far from cities (to reduce the Village Panchayat Pipaliya Goli
influence of urban effects) and close to the forested areas
(to ascertain stronger ecological dependence) was sought. Study area
The village panchayat of Pipaliya Goli, located in the
central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, was chosen be- The Panchayat, or village-level administrative and gov-
cause it is situated at the boundary of a protected forest ernance unit, of Pipaliya Goli is one of the 72 panchayats
area. It is two hours away from the nearest city and is that come under the Obaidullaganj Development Block, a
significantly dependent on forest resources for its suste- government-designated development unit, in the state of
nance. Madhya Pradesh in India. The village panchayat is
As discussed above, we used CSRA as the guiding located about 55 km south of the state capital, Bhopal.
framework for resilience analysis. The first two steps of The panchayat belongs to Raisen District, which is 60 km
CSRA, as described above, are strengthened by using from the district headquarters in Raisen. The nearest
SLF (Figures 1 and 2). SLF provides an opportunity for urban location, Goharganj Tehsil is 20 km from the vil-
systematic analysis of the complex livelihood landscape lage panchayat, and acts as a market and administrative
for Step 1 of the CSRA and helps identify major risks as- center (Figure 3).

1198 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION

Figure 1. Four step resilience analysis and the sustainable livelihood framework.

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram to merge the CSRA with the SLF.

The panchayat falls into the Agro-climatic zone of nificant population within the region lives below poverty
Vindhyan Plateau (MP-5); Central Highlands (Malwa and line and subsists with a combination of rain-fed agricul-
Bundelkhand), hot sub-humid, (dry) Ecoregion (10.1)54. ture, manual labour, and extraction and utilization of
The current rainfall patterns have lately been erratic (as forest-based resources. Recently many households have
residents confirmed in focus-group discussions) in the started temporarily migrating to nearby urban areas, in
panchayat and have led to significant loss of agricultural search of employment and mostly work as manual
crop production. labourers in the construction industry.
The Panchayat of Pipaliya Goli has six villages in its
constituency. These villages are Pipaliya Goli, Panjher,
Khodra, Karakwani, Barhakheda and Bandarchuha. The Assets and livelihood strategy through SLF
dominant tribe in the region is the Gond tribe followed by
Bhils and Banjaras. Many of these villages are remote Assets: Assets can generally be described as material
and have only recently been connected with all-weather and social resources that a household can use to make a
roads. The panchayat is situated just outside Ratapani meaningful living and/or achieve desirable goals43,55.
Wildlife Sanctuary (RWLS) area. The sanctuary is in the These assets can then be used in multiple flexible ways
process to be upgraded to become a national park. A sig- and tradeoffs to achieve a desired outcome. Assets under
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1199
 SPECIAL SECTION:

Figure 3. Map of Obaidullaganj development block and Goharganj Tehsil in Raisen district.

the six capitals (social, political, physical, natural, finan- assets of the panchayat have increased significantly over
cial and human) can be considered as building blocks and the last decade, compared to other panchayats in the re-
can be substituted or converted into each other 16. Partici- gion. However, the conditions of roads have deteriorated
patory observation, focus-group discussion, literature re- due to lack of maintenance.
view and secondary data, were used to evaluate the six
capitals of panchayats. A brief description of the six capi- Social assets: Many villages in the panchayat are ethni-
tals in Pipaliya Goli is as follows. cally homogeneous. Gond tribes dominate the village
panchayat followed by Bhilalas and Banjaaras. Although
Physical assets: The village panchayat has recently ethnic conflict is uncommon, conflicts do occur during
been connected with all-weather roads. It has been pro- local panchayat elections, in which Gond tribes are seen by
vided with a Higher Secondary school and now boasts of other groups to be dominating. Kinship plays a major role
two primary government and two private medical centres. in social organization within the panchayat. Most of the
Recently a small irrigation dam has also been con- village panchayat members (especially in the Gond tribe)
structed. Electric connections while available, do not consider themselves relatives of one another both within
provide continuous electricity. Overall, the physical the village and across the panchayat. This is true for the

1200 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION
Table 1. Average income per ha of agriculture land in the panchayat (Rs/ha)

Year Bandarchuha Barhakheda Karakwani Khodra Panjher Pipaliya Goli

2009 5666 18075 11331 11971 19214 7760

2010 7163 20153 12515 12794 17227 7181
2011 6449 20045 11399 12521 19399 8666
2012 4545 19331 9530 9424 17619 10089

Average 5956 19401 11194 11678 19214 8424

Bhil and the Banjara tribes as well. The village panchayat vulnerable. Increased soil and moisture conservation
also boasts of strong personal relations to the members of work, through government supported National Rural Em-
ruling political party in the state. ployment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) is considered to
improve productivity of the region as well. Some work on
Financial assets: Government programmes, like ‘farm- soil and moisture conservation has been done in agricul-
ers’ credit cards’, provide loans at reduced interest to tural fields of few villages.
farmers in the region. However, not many farmers have
land and hence are unable to access loans. The ones who Quarries: Six open-cast stone quarries are operating in
have land but have not used it, have reported using this and around the village panchayat, that provide employ-
service minimally. Micro-credit was initially available ment to more than 80% of the households in the region.
through Self-Help Groups (SHGs), but has recently been However, these quarries will come under the threat of
unavailable as the NGOs running SHGs have moved out closure since most of them are operating close to pro-
of the region. Other government-sponsored pension tected areas60.
schemes are available to households in the panchayat, but
are not sufficient to assure household sustenance. Forests: The forest around the Panchayat is classified
(according to Champion and Seth) as 5A/C 1b-Southern
Human assets: The health indicators for the panchayat Tropical Dry Deciduous Teak Forest and 5A/C 3 –
are fairly low. The sex ratio (females to 1000 males) of Southern Tropical Dry Deciduous Mixed Forest. Most of
children under five years is very poor (773/1000) as com- the forest in the region is of IVb quality (poor), and most
pared to the state average of 936/1000. The district infant of the trees in the region are of younger age class 61. Due
mortality rate (129/1000 babies) is very high as compared to high species richness, the area has been designated as a
to the national average of 55/1000 babies56,57. Malnutri- national park62. The village panchayat benefits signifi-
tion and health care are also problems in this region. The cantly by extracting from forest resources. Species like
body mass index in the region (18.43  1.94) is fairly low Tendu (Diasporos melanoxylon), Achar (Buchnannia lan-
compared to state with the highest of 19.33  2.16 (ref. zan), Mahua (Madhuca indica) are important sources of
58). However, literacy rates in the village panchayat are non-timber forest products (NTFP). The fruits collected
rising with the establishment of the new high school and from these species and the firewood collected from the
proposal for a higher secondary school in the offing. forest, constitute roughly 25% of their overall livelihood
income. However, due to such extractions and grazing,
the region is under heavy biotic pressure with signifi-
Natural assets cantly low regeneration rates.

Agriculture: As compared to the neighbouring districts Political assets: We define political assets as the level
(Hoshangabad, Rs 25,269/ha and Bhopal, Rs 21,219/ha), of direct connection to the ruling political party. It is
the economic productivity of agricultural land in Raisen mostly defined by how close is the ruling political party
(Rs 14,230/ha) is low59. Comparatively, productivity of to village households. The panchayat has a very strong
village agricultural lands in the panchayat (Table 1) is connection to the current ruling party of the state, and vil-
also low, ranging from 5956 to 19,214 per ha. Only 25% lagers consider party leadership to be connected to their
of land is irrigated in the panchayat. Moreover, 40% of families. Ruling parties in the state and in the village
households in the panchayat are landless. The average panchayat are also aligned. This alignment has facilitated
farm size in the panchayat is 1.98 ha which is smaller significant material and non-material benefits to the
than the state average of 2.2 ha. The panchayat does not panchayat in recent years. Approval of a high school,
have water for irrigation for the entire year, but recent completion of an irrigation dam, development of village
damming of the river will provide benefit to some farm- roads, and other developments can be attributed to
ers in this region. Since 75% of agriculture is rainfed, smooth government functions, which are assisted by har-
variations in weather patterns make this area significantly monious political interest and oversight. Thus, the village

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1201

 SPECIAL SECTION:
Table 2. Average total income of a household in the village panchayat

2009 2010 2011 2012 Average Income (%)

Agriculture crops 12,010 12,963 13,333 13,289 12899  615 16

Ag labour 5,980 6,313 6,458 6,608 6340  268 8
Non-farm labour 13,772 14,679 15,655 14,745 14713  769 18
Short-migration 3,747 3,957 4,527 6,702 4733  1353 6
Long-migration 16,525 18,354 17,132 31,362 20843  7054 26
NTFP 5,808 5,864 4,792 4,953 5354  561 7
Wood 14,771 14,771 14,771 14,771 14771 18
Loans 409 670 1,959 1,801 1210  784 1

Total 73,022 77,572 78,628 94,231 80863  9238 100

panchayat has a high political capital. While political scheme, where they work as wage labourers for various
connections are here to stay, the five-year local (Pancha- construction and maintenance works. Some HHs have
yat) and state wide elections, can shift these connections members who are educated and are able to get employ-
and reduce opportunities for the panchayat. ment through NGO’s and other panchayat related infor-
mation collection work. In limited cases, members with
Livelihood strategy: The livelihood opportunities that higher education migrate to bigger cities or study further.
are available to HHs are based on the assets detailed However, many return to help their families during sow-
above, in combination with policies, processes and insti- ing season.
tutions. Describing all the policies is outside the scope of Most self-sustaining livelihood activities are time-
this article, but more information on policies that influ- sensitive, and do not occupy the whole year. With all the
ence these villages is available52. Here, we focus on lo- livelihood activities combined, households are able to
cally relevant processes and institutions. work roughly for 6–8 months. Remaining time is spent
There are six villages of the Pipaliya Goli Panchayat. working non-farm, non-forest labour, either in nearby
Factors such as caste configuration, relative closeness to industrial towns or in quarries close to the village. Non-
the roads, closeness to the forest and protected area farm labour becomes an important source of income for
boundary, and finally, respective settlement period, con- most households in the panchayat.
tribute and dictate household livelihood opportunities. The average household income over the last 4 years, is
The most common livelihood opportunities availed by roughly Rs 80,863/year (Table 2). Household income can
households are agriculture, non-farm labour, short and be grouped into four large categories: income from agri-
long-term migration, collection of NTFPs, and rearing culture, non-farm labour, income from forest and income
livestock. Households also receive financial support from from migration. Income from agriculture and forest
the government, but most of this support is limited in its roughly constitutes about 24% and 25% of total house-
ability to sustain a household. The majority of households hold income respectively, while income from non-farm
have similar livelihood opportunities. However, the dif- labour and migration constitutes 18% and 32% respec-
ference lies in the relative weight of contribution of these tively (Table 3).
activities in overall household livelihood strategy.
Most of the HHs practice rain-fed agriculture, includ-
ing growing soybean or rice during monsoon season and Identifying major shocks
wheat, grams (chickpeas) during winters. Once members
of a HH complete sowing/harvesting of their own field, The vulnerability of livelihoods can be analysed by
they provide labour assistance to other HHs, either as studying shocks, trends and exogenous variables, that can
labour exchange or for wages. The more capable HHs disrupt access to capital or disrupt continuation of ser-
rent agriculture field from other landholders to increase vices that are employed for creating livelihood opportuni-
their agriculture production. Post agriculture season, HHs ties. In order to study vulnerability, it has been argued
engage in collecting NTFP through the forest and prepare that resilience of these assets should be studied7.
it for sale, the other members of the HH search for labour Major shocks were identified through the SWOT
in and around the village. analysis based on interviews and focus-group discus-
HHs that have access to outside information and oppor- sions, with panchayat households, government officials,
tunities, often migrate to provide services as wage labour and subject and local experts. A detailed description of
in industrial town and other labour markets. In summer, major shocks and their impact on local livelihoods is
HHs wait for government-assisted labour work that is available52. Based on risk perception and ranking, shifts
supported under the national rural employment guarantee in the following factors was considered to have a higher

1202 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION
Table 3. Income categories for the household

Incomes category Income comprising of Percentage value

Agriculture Income from agriculture production + income from agriculture labour 19,239 (24%)
Non-farm labour Income from quarries, NREGS, forest works, etc. 14,713 (18%)
Forest Income from NTFP + income from monetization of fuelwood and timber 20,126 (25%)
Migration Income from short term migration + income from long-term migration 25,576 (32%)

Table 4. Scenarios and benefits is given in Table 6. The scenarios are de-
Govt Political scribed below.
policies capital Weather
Scenario 1: This scenario assumes that national park
Scenario 1 Unfavourable Favourable Favourable
policies are fully implemented, however, the political
Scenario 2 Unfavourable Favourable Unfavourable
Scenario 3 Unfavourable Unfavourable Unfavourable alignment and weather conditions remain favourable. The
Scenario 4 Favourable Favourable Favourable impact of implementation of national park policies is high
Scenario 5 Favourable Favourable Unfavourable and will expose close to 47% (Table 5) of average house-
Scenario 6 Favourable Unfavourable Unfavourable hold income. The loss of income is due to a ban on access
to forest resources (timber, NTFP and grazing) and ban
on stone quarries around protected areas (due to forma-
tion of eco-regions). However, strong political capital
likelihood of impact on household livelihoods: change in
helps negotiate the livelihood rights of the local commu-
political capital in terms of political leadership at state
nity. Due to favourable political capital, state government
level; changes in political leadership at the panchayat
can create ways to protect livelihoods of local communi-
level (nature and character of leadership); health of
ties, by allowing (controlled) access to forest resources
household members; condition of roads and irrigation in-
and create jobs with the tourism industry and forest de-
frastructure; agriculture productivity (productivity of
partment. Even then, such actions will be insufficient to
land); availability of non-farming jobs for households;
take care of the income of all the households. Thus, even
shift in weather patterns – impacting agriculture and
with favourable political capital only close to 21% of the
NTFP production; and government policies implementa-
average household income can be buffered. Favourable
tion of national park guidelines.
weather pattern will help buffer the income by an
approximate 30%. However, since only 10% of the
Scenarios – analysis households can sustain themselves with agriculture. The
rest (90%) still depend upon labour along with forest-
Building scenarios is an important way of incorporating based income. Overall roughly 27% of the average
possible risks and associated impacts that can happen in household income becomes vulnerable.
future. This allows resilience analysis to help reduce
complexity, by focusing on futures that are most probable Scenario 2: This scenario assumes complete implemen-
and important for the studied system. Based on likelihood tation of the national park policies. It assumes that
of occurrence and severity of impact, we can identify ma- weather conditions will be unfavourable but political
jor risks out of the eight risks mentioned above. These alignment will remain favourable to villagers. The
risks are: change in political capital both at state level and implementation of the park policy will affect about 47%
at local level; shift in weather patterns – impacting agri- (Table 5) of their overall income. Good political capital
culture and NTFP production; and government policies – might be able to save up to 20% of this income. An unfa-
implementation of national park guidelines. vourable weather can impact an approximate 30% of
CSRA14 suggests developing 3–5 scenarios for evalua- average household income. Good political capital can
tion. For policy analyses, scenarios can be developed by buffer the impact by providing compensation (16%) to
combining factors/risks that are of highest importance to limited (land holding) families but the timing of compen-
the system in future. For analysis, scenarios can be de- sation is arbitrary (as found from interviews). Overall, an
veloped through the combination of these three factors in approximate 40% of the average household income
two different states (favourable/unfavourable) influencing becomes vulnerable.
livelihood strategies of a household (Table 4).
The major vulnerabilities and benefits to average Scenario 3: In this scenario, we assume that all the fac-
household income under each scenario have been evalu- tors will be unfavourable, i.e. national park policies will
ated based on the exposure of various income categories be fully implemented, weather conditions and political
to each risk (Table 5). A summary of these vulnerabilities alignment both will be unfavourable. The impacts of

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1203

 SPECIAL SECTION:
Table 5. Average HH income vulnerability to different scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Rs % Rs % Rs % Rs % Rs %

Establishment of national park boundary

Relocation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Restriction on NTFP collection 5,354 7 5,354 7 5,354 7 0 0 0 0
Restriction on fuelwood and timber 14,771 18 14,771 18 14,771 18 0 0 0 0
Ban on quarries 13,389 17 13,389 17 13,389 17 0 0 0 0
Wildlife raids on crops (25% loss) 3,225 4 3,225 4 3,225 4 0 0 0 0
Loss of farm labour due to loss of crops 1,585 2 1,585 2 1,585 2 1,585 2 1,585 2
No relocation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Access to NTFP 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,354 7 5,354 7
Access to fuelwood and timber 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,771 18 14,771 18
Maintenance of quarries 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,389 17 13,389 17
Repayment for loss of crops 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,585 2 1,585 2
Benefits from tourism jobs 6,000 7 6,000 7 6,000 7 6,000 7 6,000 7
Benefits from forest jobs 1,532 2 1,532 2 1,532 2 1,532 2 1,532 2
Vulnerability from national park 38,324 47 38,324 47 38,324 47 1,585 2 1,585 2
Benefits of national park 7,532 9 7,532 9 7,532 9 42,631 52 42,631 52

Impact weather patterns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Benefit to the crops 12,899 16 0 0 0 0 12,899 16 0 0
Benefit of short-term labour 4,733 6 0 0 0 0 4,733 6 0 0
Benefit for farm labour 6,340 8 0 0 0 0 6,340 8 0 0
Loss of crops 0 0 12,899 16 12,899 16 0 0 12,899 16
Loss of short term migration 0 0 4,733 6 4,733 6 0 0 4,733 6
Loss of farm labour 0 0 6,340 8 6,340 8 0 0 6,340 8
Vulnerability from weather patterns 0 0 23,972 30 23,972 30 0 0 23,972 30
Benefits of weather patterns 23,972 30 0 0 0 0 23,972 30 0 0

Impact political capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Delayed implementation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced restrictions NTFP by 50% 2,677 3 2,677 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced restriction wood 50% 7,386 9 7,386 9 0 0 0 0 0 0
Allowing mining in the areas by 50% 6,694 8 6,694 8 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compensation for crop loss 0 0 12,899 16 0 0 0 0 12,899 16
Vulnerability of political capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Benefits from political capital 16,757 21 29,656 37 0 0 0 0 12,899 16
Combined (vulnerability NP – political benefits) 21,567 27 32,640 40 62,296 77 1,585 2 12,658 16
Combined benefits (avg) 31,503 38 7,532 9 7,532 9 66,603 82 42,631 52

Table 6. Summary of vulnerabilities and benefits to average HH income under different scenarios

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5

Impacts/benefits Rs % Rs % Rs % Rs % Rs %

Vulnerability from national park 38,324 47 38,324 47 38,324 47 1,585 2 1,585 2

Benefits of national park 7,532 9 7,532 9 7,532 9 42,631 52 42,631 52
Vulnerability from weather 0 0 23,972 30 23,972 30 0 0 23,972 30
Benefits from weather patterns 23,972 30 0 0 0 0 23,972 30 0 0
Vulnerability from political capital 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Benefits from political capital 16,757 21 29,656 37 0 0 0 0 12,899 16
Combined (vulnerability NP – political benefits) 21,567 27 32,640 40 62,296 77 1,585 2 12,658 16
Combined benefits (avg) 31,503 38 7,532 9 7,532 9 66,603 82 42,631 52

weather and national park access policies will not be implications for households. Forty two per cent of the
buffered from the poor political capital. In total about households without land will come in conditions where
77% of the average household income will be severely af- they can be pushed out of the area because of lack of access
fected (Tables 5 and 6). This scenario has the most severe to resources and hence reduced livelihood opportunities.

1204 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION

Scenario 4: This scenario assumes that the three factors weather patterns. Strong political capital can buffer
are in favourable conditions, i.e. national park policies, against some of the risks from policies and weather.
political alignment and weather conditions. This scenario However, poor political capital would increase the likeli-
is the most benefiting where the income of most house- hood of significant impacts on households’ income and
holds will be better off (compared to the present) and hence increase vulnerabilities. These findings support the
there will be increased prosperity. Considering that the arguments made by63–65 which highlight the dependence
current access to income from quarrying, collecting of rural livelihoods on forest resources and the impacts of
NTFP and from timber and fuelwood is maintained. This protected area policies on rural livelihoods.
scenario will support roughly 82% (Tables 5 and 6) of the In the present day, climate change is considered a
average household income. major risk to communities worldwide. However, in this
case-study, we found that rural household livelihoods
Scenario 5: This scenario assumes that there will be have a much larger exposure to government policies as
favourable national park policies, and political alignment compared to climate change. The worst conditions will
and unfavourable weather conditions. Having favourable occur when unfavourable shifts in government policies,
political capital will reduce impact of weather and in- coincide with impacts of unfavourable weather on poor
crease the bargaining ability of local communities. The communities that do not have good political representa-
probability of having a favourable national park policy is tion. In such a case, large number of village households
higher when there is high political capital. In this sce- will experience forced migration, leading to a significant
nario, the favourable capital will buffer approximately change in their lives, identity and livelihoods.
52% (Tables 5 and 6) of the income that is vulnerable to Hence, while investing in local climate adaptation for
the national park. Unfavourable weather can impact rural communities, it is important to note that their vul-
roughly 30% of the average household income. Impact of nerability does not simply originate from weather shocks
weather can be buffered by the political capital through but also from fluctuations in government policies, which
increased compensation (16%) to families that practice enables or constrains much of their livelihood capabili-
agriculture. However, as mentioned in the earlier section, ties. The study also showcases and strengthens the exist-
compensation on weather related events goes only to ing argument that a diverse livelihood portfolio for a poor
those who have land. In that case, 42% of the houses will rural household is certainly better to limit the exposure of
still be directly affected. 16% of the average household a single risk.
income will become vulnerable. As this project demonstrates, SLF and CSRA provide
complementary approaches to understand and evaluate a
Scenario 6: This scenario assumes favourable national complex social-ecological system, for its response to dif-
park policies but unfavourable political alignment and ferent shocks, and hence its resilience. SLF provides a
weather conditions. As discussed, without political capi- holistic approach to identify major drivers (assets, proc-
tal, favourable policies of national park cannot be bar- esses, policies and institutions) that are important for sus-
gained. So this scenario will essentially be reduced to tenance of households in a given system. This enables the
scenario 3. In this case 77% of the average income will identification of risks associated with these drivers. Such
be vulnerable and 42% of families will be at risk of get- risks can then be systematically evaluated for their impact
ting displaced. on the overall system. Thus, SLF provides a very strong
foundation to conduct resilience analysis. CSRA, mean-
while, is able to guide the analysis forward, beyond sim-
Discussion: climate and public policy in rural ply understanding the past development of the system,
livelihood resilience and helps develop scenarios based on perceived threats
that the system can face in possible future. Thus, identifi-
This research analysed the resilience of livelihoods in cation of major threats, their systematic prioritization and
Pipaliya Goli to shocks and uncertainty. Through focus- finally creating scenarios based on those threats allows
group discussions and SWOT analysis, three most likely the resilience analysis of a complex social-ecological sys-
and threatening risks were identified. The scenario analy- tem.
sis helped in evaluating the possible impact of individual This combination of two approaches brings new chal-
and combination of risks. Through comprehensive lenges and opportunities for research associated with
evaluation of these scenarios, we can ascertain that local measurement of household resilience. There are various
livelihoods are vulnerable and not resilient to the identi- categories of livelihood strategies, i.e. accumulation, con-
fied risks of changes in weather patterns, shift in gov- solidation, compensatory and security66. The choice of a
ernment policies and change in political capital (Table 6). particular category depends upon the household’s experi-
Through this analysis, we reinforce the existing under- ence of socio-economic conditions, and learning from
standing that shifts in government policy have a greater past experiences. This is an important dimension that dif-
impact on household incomes as compared to shifts in ferentiates between households based on their current
CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1205
 SPECIAL SECTION:

state and past experiences. Although the current analysis and Uncertainty: New Directions in Natural Resource Manage-
uses a generalized estimation for all livelihood behavior, ment, University of Sussex, Institute of Development Studies,
1999.
future iterations might provide more nuanced analysis by 10. DFID. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets; [Link]
segregating households based on their current state and [Link]/pool/files/ife/[Link]. Updated 2000 (acce-
experience. ssed on 5 January 2010).
While SLF is able to identify major drivers that help in 11. Scoones, I., Livelihoods perspectives and rural development.
sustenance of households, it is still just a snapshot in J. Peasant Stud., 2009, 36(1), 171–196.
12. Dillard, M., Toward a measure of social-ecological resilience for
time. The interaction between different assets, process, human communities, 2010.
policies and institutions is temporally dynamic. Future 13. Holling, C., Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu.
analysis should aim to capture this temporal variability of Rev. Ecol. Syst., 1973, 4(1), 1–23.
household behaviors and dynamics between assets, proc- 14. Ludwig, J. A. and Smith, M. D. S., Interpreting and correcting
esses, policies and institutions. Further, difficulty in cross-scale mismatches in resilience analysis: a procedure and
examples from Australia’s rangelands. Ecol. Soc., 2005, 10(2), 20.
quantification of such dynamics makes it harder for 15. Walker, B. et al., Resilience management in social-ecological sys-
measurement of resilience. Future analysis can cover the tems: A working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv.
gap by using newer techniques such as complex-system Ecol., 2002, 6(1), 14.
modelling that can handle temporal dynamics and vari- 16. Baumann, P. and Sinha, S., Linking development with democratic
ability52. processes in India: Political capital and sustainable livelihoods
analysis, 2009.
The current research demonstrates the merit of combin- 17. Rydzak, F., Magnuszewski, P., Sendzimir, J. and Chlebus, E., A
ing SLF and CSRA frameworks for the forward looking concept of resilience in production systems, 2006.
resilience approach. Under current climate change dis- 18. Anderies, J. M., A framework to analyse the robustness of social-
course where mainstreaming adaptation in development ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol. Soc.,
process has become the norm, it is important for devel- 2004, 9(1), 18.
19. Walker, B. H., Gunderson, L. H., Kinzig, A. P., Folke, C., Carpen-
opment agencies to evaluate resilience and measure ter, S. R. and Schultz, L., A handful of heuristics and some propo-
change through their interventions. While both SLF and sitions for understanding resilience in social-ecological systems.
CSRA have been developed independently, our research Ecol. Soc., 2006, 11(1), 13.
represents a novel attempt to combine these two ap- 20. Walker, B., A resilience approach to integrated assessment. Integr.
proaches successfully for the analysis of livelihood resil- Assess., 2005, 5(1).
21. Resilience Alliance. Resilience; [Link]
ience. The combination of frameworks and techniques [Link]/resilience. Updated 2002.
adopted for analysis offers new methodologies for con- 22. Carpenter, S. R., Westley, F. and Turner, M. G., Surrogates for resil-
ducting a systematic livelihood resilience analysis of ience of social-ecological systems. Ecosystems, 2005, 8(8), 941–944.
poor, natural resource-dependent communities. Further 23. Cimellaro, G. P., Reinhorn, A. M. and Bruneau, M., Quantifica-
research should test these methodologies across different tion of seismic resilience, 2006, 18–22.
24. Forbes, B. C., Stammler, F., Kumpula, T., Meschtyb, N., Pajunen,
geographies and different resilience challenges, with the A. and Kaarlejärvi, E., High resilience in the yamal-nenets social-
goal of generating a robust, standardized model for resil- ecological system, west Siberian arctic, Russia. Proc. Natl. Acad.
ience analysis combining CSRA and SLF. Sci., 2009, 106(52), 22041.
25. Forbes, B. C., Equity, vulnerability and resilience in social-
ecological systems: a contemporary example from the Russian arc-
1. IPCC, Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerabil- tic. Res. Soc. Problems Public Policy, 2008, 15, 203–236.
ity. Part A: Global and sectoral aspects. contribution of working 26. Pendall, R., Foster, K. A. and Cowell, M., Resilience and regions:
group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental Building understanding of the metaphor. Camb. J. Reg. Econ.
panel on climate change, 2014. Soc., 2009.
2. Solomon, S. et al., IPCC, Summary for policymakers. Climate 27. Wang, C. and Blackmore, J. M., Resilience concepts for water re-
Change, 2007. source systems. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manage., 2009, 135, 528.
3. Adger, W. N., Scales of governance and environmental justice for 28. Thrush, S. F. et al., Forecasting the limits of resilience: Integrating
adaptation and mitigation of climate change. J. Int. Dev., 2001, empirical research with theory. Proc. R. Soc. B: Biol. Sci., 2009,
13(7), 921. 276(1671), 3209.
4. Béné, C. et al., Testing resilience thinking in a poverty context: 29. Cabell, J. F. and Oelofse, M., An indicator framework for assess-
Experience from the niger river basin. Global Environ. Change, ing agroecosystem resilience. Ecol. Soc., 2012, 17(1).
2011, 21(4), 1173–1184. 30. Ouyang, M., Dueñas-Osorio, L. and Min, X., A three-stage resil-
5. Cumming, G. S. et al., An exploratory framework for the empiri- ience analysis framework for urban infrastructure systems. Struct.
cal measurement of resilience. Ecosystems, 2005, 8(8), 975–987. Saf., 2012, 36, 23–31.
6. Miller, F. et al., Resilience and vulnerability: complementary or 31. Becken, S., Developing a framework for assessing resilience of
conflicting concepts. Ecol. Soc., 2010, 15(3), 11. tourism sub-systems to climatic factors. Ann. Tourism Res., 2013,
7. Scoones, I., Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for 43, 506–528.
Analysis, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton, 1998. 32. Neudoerffer, R., An analysis of rural watershed adaptation dynam-
8. Scoones, I., New ecology and the social sciences: What prospects ics: Building social-ecological resilience to climate change on the
for a fruitful engagement? Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 1999, 28(1), canadian prairies. Ph D thesis, University of Guelph, Canada,
479–507. 2008.
9. Mehta, L., Leach, M., Newell, P., Scoones, I., Sivaramakrishnan, 33. Van der Leeuw, S. E., Vulnerability and the integrated study of
K. C. and Way, S. A., Exploring Understandings of Institutions socio-natural phenomena. IHDP Update, 2001, 2(01), 6–7.

1206 CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND ADAPTATION
34. Allison, H. E. and Hobbs, R. J., Resilience, adaptive capacity, and 51. Ludi, E. and Slater, R., Using the sustainable livelihoods frame-
the lock-in trap of the western Australian agricultural region. Ecol. work to understand and tackle poverty. In Briefing Note for the
Soc., 2004, 9(1), 3. Poverty – Wellbeing Platform, London, ODI, 2007.
35. Rockström, J. et al., A watershed approach to upgrade rainfed 52. Saxena, A., Evaluating the resilience of local livelihoods to
agriculture in water scarce regions through water system innova- change in a complex social ecological system: A case of village
tions: An integrated research initiative on water for food and rural panchayat in central India. Ph D thesis, Yale University, New
livelihoods in balance with ecosystem functions. Phys. Chem. Haven, 2015.
Earth, Parts A/B/C, 2004, 29(15–18), 1109–1118. 53. Folke, C., Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–
36. Langridge, R., Christian-Smith, J. and Lohse, K. A., Access and ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. Change, 2006,
resilience: analysing the construction of social resilience to the 16(3), 253–267.
threat of water scarcity. Ecol. Soc., 2006, 11(2), 18. 54. GoI, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation: Agriculture
37. Maru, Y. T., Smith, M. S., Sparrow, A., Pinho, P. F. and Dube, O. contingency plan: Raisen, 2014; [Link]
P., A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation ture%20Contingency%20Plan/MP/MP48_Raisen_24.[Link]
pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Global Environ. 55. Bebbington, A., Capitals and capabilities: A framework for ana-
Change, 2014, 28, 337–350. lyzing peasant viability, rural livelihoods and poverty. World
38. Steen-Adams, M. M., Langston, N., Adams, M. D. and Mladenoff, Dev., 1999, 27(12), 2021–2044.
D. J., Historical framework to explain long-term coupled human 56. MPSPC. Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017) and annual plan
and natural system feedbacks: application to a multiple-ownership (2012–2013), Volume I, Government of Madhya Pradesh Plan-
forest landscape in the northern great lakes region, USA. Ecol. ning, Economics and Statistics Department, 2012.
Soc., 2015, 20(1), 28. 57. Gharami, A. K., Infant mortality in the Gond tribe of Raisen dis-
39. Butzer, K. W. and Endfield, G. H., Critical perspectives on his- trict, Madhya Pradesh. Child Surv. Health, 2009, 195.
torical collapse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 2012, 109(10), 3628– 58. Gautam, R. K., Biosocial covariates of adult male body mass in-
3631. dex in central India. J. Biosoc. Sci., 2007, 39(06), 875–893.
40. Bennett, E., Cumming, G. and Peterson, G., A systems model 59. Chand, R., Garg, S. and Pandey, L., Regional variations in agricul-
approach to determining resilience surrogates for case studies. tural productivity: A district level study, 2009; NPP 01/2009.
Ecosystems, 2005, 8(8), 945–957. 60. Govt of India. The Gazette of India extra ordinary eco-sensitive
41. Rist, L. et al., Applying resilience thinking to production ecosys- zones around national parks and Wild Life Sanctuary (F. NO. 1-
tems. Ecosphere, 2014, 5(6), art73–art73. 9/2007 WL-I(pt). 2007.
42. Harris, K., Resilience in practice. Operationalising the ten charac- 61. MPFD, Working plan of Obaidullaganj division (2006–2016),
teristics of resilience through the case of greening darfur, 2011. 2006.
43. De Haan, L. and Zoomers, A., Exploring the frontier of liveli- 62. Govt of India. Creation of tiger reserves, Press Information
hoods research. Dev. Change, 2005, 36(1), 27–47. Bureau, 2013; [Link]
44. Ellis, F., Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification. 63. Agrawal, A. and Redford, K., Conservation and displacement: an
J. Dev. Stud., 1998, 35(1), 1–38. overview. Conserv. Soc., 2009, 7(1), 1.
45. Rakodi, C., A livelihoods approach – conceptual issues and defini- 64. DeFries, R., Karanth, K. K. and Pareeth, S., Interactions between
tions. In Urban Livelihoods: A People-centred Approach to protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated tropi-
Reducing Poverty (eds Rakodi, C. and Lyod-Jones, T.), Earthscan cal landscapes. Biol. Conserv., 2010, 143(12), 2870–2880.
Publications, London, 2002, pp. 3–22. 65. Coad, L., Campbell, A., Miles, L. and Humphries, K., The costs
46. Chambers, R. and Conway, G., Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: and benefits of protected areas for local livelihoods: a review of
Practical Concepts for the 21st Century, Institute of Development the current literature. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Cen-
Studies, UK, 1992. tre, Cambridge, UK, 2008.
47. Chambers, R., Editorial introduction: vulnerability, coping and 66. Zoomers, A., Linking Livelihood Strategies to Development: Ex-
policy. IDS Bull., 1989, 20(2), 1–7. periences from the Bolivian Andes, Royal Tropical Institute, 1999.
48. Carney, D., Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What Contribution
Can We Make? Department for International Development, Lon- ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. We thank M.P. Forest Department and
don, 1998. Ms Archana Sharma, Executive Director, Aranya (NGO), Bhopal, India
49. Collinson, D. L., Identities and insecurities: Selves at work. for their support during the fieldwork between 2009 and 2012. The
Organization, 2003, 10(3), 527–547. research was partially funded by the Tropical Research Institute, The
50. Lautze, S. and Raven-Roberts, A., Violence and complex humani- South Asian Studies Council and the Agrarian Studies at Yale.
tarian emergencies: Implications for livelihoods models. Disas-
ters, 2006, 30(4), 383–401. doi: 10.18520/cs/v110/i7/1195-1207

CURRENT SCIENCE, VOL. 110, NO. 7, 10 APRIL 2016 1207