Eco-Friendly Livelihood Interventions for Income Enhancement among Vulnerable Households in a Western Himalayan Village Cluster: A Participatory Action Research Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.53550/ijsc.v53.i3.207Keywords:
Action research, Backyard poultry, Hill livelihoods, Himalayan agriculture, Participatory action research, Protected cultivation, Sustainable developmentAbstract
Small rainfed hill farms in the Indian Himalayan Region face ecological fragility, resource depletion, and farmland abandonment, requiring alternative livelihoods for vulnerable communities. This study assesses the economic viability and socioecological impacts of low- cost livelihood interventions for marginalized households in Uttarakhand' s Jyoli village (2020-2022). Using participatory action research, we implemented six eco- friendly interventions i.e. protected cultivation, backyard poultry, beekeeping, vermi- composting, bio- briquetting, and green skilling—among 150 purposively selected households (Scheduled Caste, Below Poverty Line, COVIDaffected, women- headed) from a cluster with baseline mean income ` 13, 134/HH/year. Daily input- output registers, beneficiary surveys, and cost- benefit analyses quantified outcomes over 24 months. Non- beneficiary households (n = 153) provided contextual comparison. Of 150 intervention households, 62 (41. 3%) achieved income doubling to ` 28, 935/HH by September 2022, primarily through poultry (85 HH; 2, 700 birds; B:C 2. 13; ` 69,56,951 revenue despite 17% mortality, χ ² = 4. 8, p = 0. 03) and polyhouses (41 units; 26. 16 t ha-1 vegetable yield—16 × higher than open fields, p< 0. 001; B:C 2. 66, 95% CI: 2. 12–3. 20). Overall project investment of ` 61,4,612 generated ` 97,6,976 output (net ` 5, 15, 515; aggregate B:C 2. 12). Scale of adoption explained 95% of income variance (r = 0. 975, p< 0. 001), while per- household profitability explained 77% (r = 0. 878, p< 0. 001). Complementary activities—beekeeping (81 kg honey; 27–73% pollination- driven crop yield gains), vermi- composting (68 quintals), and green skilling (91% women participants)—enhanced nutrition security and women' s empowerment (73. 2% self- confidence, 70.7% economic gains). However, only 42.9% reported reduced migration. Integrated livelihood models combining poultry with polyhouse- beekeeping can boost income under favorable conditions (support, inputs, demand). Success rate of 41% indicates potential but scalability faces barriers: chick supply, subsidized feed (56. 6% costs), veterinary services, market access, climate risk management. The model' s focus on SC/BPL and ecological benefits (biodiversity, fewer forest fires, water harvesting) offers climate- resilient development paths, though sustainability beyond project are duration remains uncertain.
References
Arunachalam, A., A.K. Handa, Inder Dev, R. Kaushal, P.Panwar and S.K. Dhyani (2020). Alternate land use and agroforestry systems for resource conservation and enhanced productivity in the hills. Indian J. Hill Farming 33 (1): 176-193.
Bargali, K. (2015). Comparative participation of rural women in agro foresting home garden in Kumaun Himalaya Uttarakhand, India. Asian Journal Afric. Extn-Econ. & Social. 6(1): 16-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9734/AJAEES/2015/16115
Bala, B., & Rana, V. (2022). Polyhouse Technology for High-Value Crops: Variability in Practices and Outcome. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 77(3), 455-467. DOI: https://doi.org/10.63040/25827510.2022.03.006
Chauhan, D. S., G.C.S. Negi & R. Joshi, R. (2024a). Effect of Honey Bee (Apis cerana) Dominated Insect Pollination on Yield and Quality of Mustard, Buckwheat and Plum in a Central Himalayan Agro Ecosystem. Int. Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences, 50(4), 543-556. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55863/ijees.2024.0069
Chauhan, D.S., Jugran, H. P., Negi, G.C.S. & Bisht, D. S. (2024b). Income generation potential of backyard poultry in rural areas of Central Himalaya. World's Poultry Science Journal, 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00439339.2024.2364880
Farrington, J. (2000). Pathways towards a sustainable mountain agriculture st in the 21 century The Hindu Kush Himalayan experience. Mountain Res. Dev. 20(2): 201-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1659/0276-4741(2000)020[0201:PTASMA]2.0.CO;2
Gupta, N. K., Manhas, J. S., & Sushil Sharma, S. S. (2016). Policy issues for integrated watershed management program of Jammu & Kashmir state.
Ghosh, P., Punetha, S., Pant, H., Singh, R.K., Rawat, S., Mylliemngap, W., Sahani, A.K., and Jugran, A.K. (2024a). Inspiringstories of Change leaders from eco-smart model villages across IHR. G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment(NIHE), Kosi
Katarmal, Almora- 263-643, Uttarakhand, India. 1-38. ISBN 978- 93-340-5495-8.
Ghosh, P., Pant, H., Punetha, S., Rawat, S., Mylliemngap, W., and Jugran, A.K. (2024b). Policy brief on ECO-Smart villagesfor Livelihood and ecological sustainability in the Himalayas. G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment(NIHE), Kosi-Katarmal, Almora- 263-643, Uttarakhand, India. 1-8. ISBN 978-93-5492- 090-3.
Jodha, N. S., Banskota, M., & Partap, T. (1992). Strategies for the sustainable development of mountain agriculture: An overview. Sustainable Mountain Agriculture: Perspectives and Issues, 1, 3- 40.Oxford & IBH Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53055/ICIMOD.134
Kumar, P. et al. (2021). Protected Cultivation of Horticultural Crops in Uttarakhand: An Economic Analysis. Agronomy 2021, 11(4), 692. Kumari, P., Kaler, N.S., Sharma, P., Sharma, S.D., Sharma, A., Negi, C. and Dhaka, R.K 2024. Agroforestry systems vis-a-vis socio-economic dynamics of the farmers: Acase study of Baijnath tehsil, Himachal Pradesh. Indian J. Soil Cons., 52(3): 249-260.DOI: 0.59797/ijsc.v52.i3.179 DOI: https://doi.org/10.59797/ijsc.v52.i3.179
Lampe, K.J. (1983). Rural development in mountainous areas- why prefers is so difficult. Mountain Research & Development 3(2): 125-129. Maikhuri, R.K., K.S. Rao & R.L. Semwal, (2001). Changing scenario of DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3672993
Himalayan agro-ecosystems: Loss of agro-biodiversity, an indicator of environmental change in Central Himalaya, India. The Environmentalist 21:23-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010638104135
Negi, S.S. (1996). Forests for Socio-economic and rural Development in India. MD Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Negi G.C.S. & Joshi V. (1997). Land use in a Himalayan catchment under stress: system responses. Ambio, 25 (2):126-128.
Negi, G.C.S. (2018). Forest fire in Uttarakhand: Causes, Consequences and remedial measures. Int. J. Ecol. &Environmental Sci. 45 (1): 31- 37.
Negi, G.C.S., Harshit Pant Jugran, Shailaja Punetha, D.S. Bisht, S.C. Arya, D.S. Chauhan, Paromita Ghosh and Deepa Bisht (2022). Doubling Farmers's income in a Village Cluster. G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment (NIHE), Kosi-Katarmal, Almora-263643, Uttarakhand, India. 100 p.
Pandey, N.C., D. Bhatt, D. Arya, B.M. Upreti, N. Chopra, G.C. Joshi and L. Tewari, (2017). Patterns of Agro-diversity with its socio-economic uses at Gagas Valley, Almora, Kumaun Himalay. Inst. J. Cons. Sci. 8(2): 317-324.
Pandey, U., & Singh, J. S. (1984). Energetics of hill agro-ecosystems: A case study from Central Himalaya. Agricultural Systems, 13(2), 83- 95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-521X(84)90030-1
Pant, H., Upadhyaya, P. & Ghosh, P. (2025) Advancing agroforestry research in the Indian Himalayas: a systematic review of knowledge trends, research gaps, and circular economy pathways. Agroforest Syst 99, 253 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01345-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01346-x
Pant, H.J. & Rawal, R. (2025). Role of Himalayan Women in Circular Bioeconomy & Livelihood Generation. In book: Harmony in Heritage: Women, Folk Culture and Sustainability in Uttarakhand. Eds. Jyoti Joshi, Co-eds. Harsh Vardhan Pant, Shikha Vinwal, Neha Bisht. Publisher: IBS Pvt. Ltd. ISBN 978-93-6729-069-9.
Pant, H. (2016). Case Study of Uttarakhand in Perspective of Extreme Climatic Events: Fire, Ecosystem and Livelihoods. In Climate Change Research at Universities (pp. 519-531). Springer, Cham.ISBN 978-3-319-58213-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58214-6_32
Pant, H. (2020). Complying with Biodiversity conservation initiative that holds the future for Himalayan people. In Biodiversity holds the future for Himalayan people. E-newsletter on International Day for Biological Diversity. May 2020 Vol (1). Page 13-14.
Pant, M., & Pant, H. (2025). Translational Dynamics of Social-Ecological Management System of Community Forestry: Prospects for Ecosystem-Based Adaptation in Community-Managed Forests of Uttarakhand. In: Khan, Y.I., Goswami, M., Nautiyal, S. (eds) Ecosystem-based Approaches for Resilience Building in Himalayan Landscapes. Disaster Resilience and Green Growth. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2007-7_14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2007-7_14
Rawal, R., Pant, H., & Ghildiyal, S. (2025). An Ecosystem-Based Assessment of Resilient Traditional Restoration Practices Towards Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Restoration in High Altitudes of Darma Valley in Uttarakhand Himalayan Region. In: Khan, Y.I., Goswami, M., Nautiyal, S. (eds) Ecosystem-based Approaches for Resilience Building in Himalayan Landscapes. Disaster Resilience and Green Growth. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2007-7_12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-2007-7_12
Rawal, R., & Pant, H. (2024). Impact of Climate Change and Mitigation Plans for Building Climate-Resilient Village Ecosystem: Challenges and Adaptive Strategies. In Warming Mountains: Implications for Livelihood and Sustainability (pp. 197-211). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031- 62197-0_10 . ISBN 978-3-031-62196-3 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-62197-0_10
Ralhan, P. K., Negi, G. C. S., & Singh, S. P. (1991). Structure and function of the agroforestry system in the Pithoragarh district of Central Himalaya: an ecological viewpoint. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 35(4), 283-296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-8809(91)90079-D
Rani R. & Singh, H.N. (2015). Acomparative study of technical efficiency of rice production in irrigated and rainfed environment of Uttarakhand. Ind. J. Hill farming 28(2):102-106.
Sanwal, M. (1989). What we know about mountain development: common property, investment priorities and institutional arrangements. Mountain Research & Development 9(1): 3-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3673460
Shukla, R., Chakraborty, A., Sachdeva, K., & Joshi, P. K. (2018). Agriculture in the western Himalayas–an asset turning into a liability. Development in Practice, 28(2), 318-324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1420140
Singh, J.S. & Singh, S.P.(1992). Forest of Himalaya: Structure, Function and Impact of Man. Gyanodaya Prakashan, Nainital.294. Singh, S.P., G.C.S. Negi, M.C. Pant & J.S. Singh (1992). Economic considerations in Central Himalayan agroecosystem. Pp. 291-296. In: Anil Agarwal (ed.), The Price of Forests. Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi.
