Karnataka J. Agric. Sci.,24 (3) : (325 - 330) 2011
Livelihood systems for rural community in Chitradurga district of Karnataka state*
M. G. SAVITHA, S. M. MUNIDINAMANI, S. S. DOLLI, B. K. NAIK, B. L. PATIL AND S. N. MEGERI
Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, India
E-mail : mgsavithaecon@gmail.com
(Received : July, 2010)
Abstract:The focus of the study was to analyse the existing livelihood systems and to identify constraints in securing required
livelihood by the sample respondents in Chitradurga district of Karnataka state. The purposive sampling technique was
employed to select 160 respondents comprising equal number of landless, marginal, small and medium farmers across the
study area. The primary data required for the study was obtained through personal interview method using pre-tested
schedule prepared for the purpose. The techniques of Tabular analysis and Garrett ranking test were employed. The result of
the study revealed that the average size of holding was 5.22 acre. The literacy was found to be 65 per cent. Among various
livelihood systems, one fourth of the respondents (25.63%) were found to engaged in wage earning followed by Crop
production + livestock + wage earning (23.75%). More than one-third (38.13%) of the respondents were preferred to work
in mines as supervisors, truck drivers and labours as their alternative livelihood option. The accessibility to basic necessities
was the major problem expressed by most of the respondents in the study area.
Keywords: Alternative livelihood option, garrett rank, nuclear family system
Introduction
“India lives in its villages” – this axiom is as true today as it
was when the country became independent 60 years ago. Over
72.5 per cent of countries population lives in rural areas. The
primary objective of any developing economy is to achieve rapid
balanced and sustained rate of economic growth. Considering
the gravity and intensity of the problem, many Non-Government
Organisations (NGOs) have come forward with different
programmes to improve the socio-economic status of the rural
poor. These agencies address the issues relating to poverty
and unemployment prevailing in the country (Vijayachandran
and Harikumar, 2006). In this context, Sesa-Goa Limited has
undertaken an alternative livelihood development programme
in four villages of Chitradurga district, as some part of the land
in the district has iron ore mineral, mining units. Majority of the
rural families are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood.
However, due to degradation, sub division of their land holdings
and fluctuations in climatic conditions, the income from
agriculture has been dwindling steadily. A livelihood comprises
the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living.
Livelihood becomes sustainable when it can cope with and
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not
undermining the natural resource base (Chambers, R. and G.
Conway, 1992). An attempt has been made in the present study
to document the existing livelihood systems and to identify the
constraints faced in securing required livelihood systems by
the sample respondents in the study area.
Material and methods
Keeping in view the objectives of the study, purposively
Chitradurga district was selected. In the district, two taluks,
namely Holalkere and Chitradurga were selected based on the
criteria of their close vicinity to a Narrain mine of Sesa Goa Ltd.
In the next stage, two villages viz, Kagalgere and Megalahalli
from Holalkere; Madakaripura and Tanigehalli from Chitradurga
taluk were chosen based on dependency of majority of the
villagers on mining activity for their livelihood. For detailed
study, 40 households comprising 10 each of landless labour,
small, marginal and medium farmers were selected randomly. In
all, 160 households were selected in the study area during the
year 2009-10.
The required information was obtained from the sample
respondents by personal interview method with the help of
structured pre-tested schedule. The tabular analysis was made
to document the existing livelihood systems by computing
averages and percentages. The problems faced by sample
respondents in getting livelihood security were prioritized by
using Garrett’s ranking technique. Rank assigned to each
problem faced by each individual was converted into per cent
position using the following formula.
Per cent position = 100 ( Rij – 0.5 ) / Nj
Where, Rij stands for rank given for the ith factor
(i= 1,2………10) by the jth individual (j = 1,2…….160)
Nj stands for number of factors ranked by jth individual
Results and discussion
A cursory look at Table 1 show that, majority of the respondents
fell in the middle (43.13%) and old age groups (31.88%) and young
accounted for one fourth (25%) of the respondents in the study
area. Thirty five per cent each of respondents were illiterate, got
education up to primary school, 18.75 per cent had secondary school
education and 11.25 per cent of the respondents were educated up
to college level. Majority of the respondents belonged to Scheduled
Tribe (62.50%) and Scheduled Caste (30.63%). Nearly 79.38 per
cent of the respondents were enjoying nuclear family system while
20.63 per cent joint family system. The average size of the nuclear
family and joint family was calculated to 5.79 and 7.94
respectively.
*Part of the M. Sc. (Agri.) thesis submitted by the first author to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad – 580 005, India
325
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci.,24 (3) : 2011
Table 1. Demographic profile of sample households in selected villages of Chitradurga district, Karnataka
n = 160
Sl. No
I
1
2
3
II
1
2
3
4
III
1
2
3
4
IV
Particulars
Age group
Young (18-35 years)
Middle(36-50 years)
Old(>50years)
Total
Education status
Illiterate
Primary (1-7)
Secondary (8-10)
Above secondary
Total
Caste
SC
ST
OBC
General
Total
Type of family
Joint family
Average family size
Nuclear family
Average family size
Total
Chitradurga
Madakaripura
Tanigehalli
No.
%
No.
%
Holalkere
Kagalgere
Megalahalli
No.
%
No.
%
Pooled
No.
%
11
14
15
40
27.5
35
37.5
100
8
19
13
40
20
47.5
32.5
100
14
14
12
40
35
35
30
100
7
22
11
40
17.5
55
27.5
100
40
69
51
160
25
43.13
31.88
100
17
13
4
6
40
42.5
32.5
10
15
100
14
14
10
2
40
35
35
25
5
100
14
11
9
6
40
35
27.5
22.5
15
100
11
18
7
4
40
27.5
45
17.5
10
100
56
56
30
18
160
35
35
18.75
11.25
100
25
10
1
4
40
62.5
25
2.5
10
100
14
26
0
0
40
35
65
0
0
100
1
37
1
1
40
2.5
92.5
2.5
2.5
100
9
27
2
2
40
22.5
67.5
5
5
100
49
100
4
7
160
30.63
62.5
2.5
4.38
100
27.5
9
22.5
7
17.5
6
15
33
11
7.18
29
7.78
72.5
31
5.62
40
8.14
77.5
33
5.81
100
40
8.67
82.5
34
5.55
100
A cursory look at Table 2 show that, in Madakaripura village
relatively higher percentage of the respondents (30%) had crop
production+ livestock + wage earning as their main livelihood
source, followed by crop production +livestock (22.5%), wage
earning (20%) and equal percentage (10%) of the respondents
had crop production + wage earning, livestock + wage earning
and only 7.5% of the respondents had business as their
livelihood. In Tanigehalli, majority of the respondents (30%)
had crop production+ livestock + wage earning as their existing
livelihood system followed by wage earning (25%), crop
production + livestock (20%), crop production + wage earning
(17.5%), crop production (5%) and only 2.5 per cent of the
respondents had business and by careful observation it denotes
that none of them were dependent on livestock + wage earning
as their livelihood systems.
In Kagalgere, relatively higher percentage of the
respondents (32.50%) had wage earning as their livelihood
system, followed by crop production + livestock (27.50%), crop
production + wage earning (17.50%), crop production+ livestock
+ wage earning (15.00%), and lesser percentage of the
respondents had business (5.00%) and only 2.50 per cent to
crop production. Here also the respondents were not dependent
on livestock + wage earning as their livelihood source. In
Megalahalli, majority of the respondents (27.5%) had crop
production + wage earning as their livelihood system followed
by wage earning (25.00%), crop production+ livestock + wage
earning (20.00%), crop production +livestock (15%) and lesser
40
85
127
6.18
100
40
20.63
7.94
79.38
5.79
100
160
100
percentage of the respondents had business (10.00%) and only
2.5 per cent of respondents had crop production. None of the
respondents were dependent on livestock + wage earning for
their livelihood systems.
The above results revealed that wage employment was the
main source of livelihood for landless and marginal farmers. In
some cases farmers owning small piece of land, followed both
agriculture and wage earning systems. It was because of the
constraints like failure and erratic rain, high cost of operation,
labour problem and dependent on mining activities etc. Some
respondents were found depended on subsidiary occupation like
livestock and other sources for their livelihood.
The results presented in Table 3 revealed that, in Madakaripura
majority (35.00%) of the respondents preferred wage earning in
mining areas as their alternative livelihood options followed by
crop production (22.50%), cow+ buffalo+ sheep rearing+ poultry
(15.00%) and about 5 per cent each to buffalo rearing and kirani
shop, about 2.5 per cent each to cow + buffalo rearing, buffalo+
sheep rearing. It is interesting to note that none of the respondents
had sheep rearing, tailoring, and garland making as alternative
livelihood options. Where as in Tanigehalli, over 40.00 per cent of
the respondents opted for wage earning in mining areas followed
by crop production (17.5%), about 7.5 per cent each to cow rearing,
buffalo rearing, buffalo+ sheep rearing, cow+ buffalo+ sheep
rearing+ poultry and 5 per cent to cow + buffalo rearing, 2.5 per
cent each to sheep rearing, kirani shop keeping, tailoring and
none of the respondents had garland making as alternative
326
Livelihood systems for rural community in Chitradurga....
Table 2. Existing livelihood systems of the sample households
Category
Chitradurga
Madakaripura
Crop production
Wage earning
Crop production +livestock
Crop production + wage earning
Livestock+ wage earning
Crop production + livestock + wage earning
Business
Total
Tanigehalli
Crop production
Wage earning
Crop production +livestock
Crop production + wage earning
Livestock+ wage earning
Crop production + livestock + wage earning
Business
Total
Holalkere
Kagalgere
Crop production
Wage earning
Crop production +livestock
Crop production + wage earning
Livestock+ wage earning
Crop production + livestock + wage earning
Business
Total
Megalahalli
Crop production
Wage earning
Crop production +livestock
Crop production + wage earning
Livestock+ wage earning
Crop production + livestock + wage earning
Business
Total
Note: Figures in parenthesis indicate percentage to total
n = 160
Pooled
Landless
Marginal
Small
Medium
7(70.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
6(60.0)
10(100.0)
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
6(60.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
8(80.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
8(20.0)
9(22.5)
4(10.0)
4(10.0)
12(30.0)
3(7.5)
40(100.0)
10(100.0)
10(100.0)
4(40.0)
6(60.0)
10(100.0)
2(20.0)
2(20.0)
3(30.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
6(60.0)
4(40.0)
10(100.0)
2(5.00)
10(25.0)
8(20.0)
7(17.5)
12(30.0)
1(2.5)
40(100.0)
10(10.0)
10(100.0)
3(30.0)
6(60.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
1(10.0)
4(40.0)
5(50.0)
10(100.0)
5(50.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
1(2.5)
13(32.5)
11(27.5)
7(17.5)
0.0
6(15.0)
2(5.0)
40(100.0)
10(10.0)
10(100.0)
6(60.0)
1(10.00
3(30.0)
10(100.0)
4(40.00
6(60.0)
10(100.0)
1(10.0)
6(60.0)
1(10.0)
1(100)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
1(2.5)
10(25.0)
6(15.0)
11(27.5)
0.00
8(20.0)
4(10.0)
40(100.0)
livelihood options. In Kagalgere also over 40 per cent of the
respondents preferred wage earning in mining areas as alternative
livelihood option followed by crop production (25.00%). About
7.5 per cent each of the respondents opted for cow rearing,
cow+ buffalo+ sheep + poultry and 5.00 per cent of the
respondents to kirani shop keeping and garland making. But
only 2.5 per cent each of respondents had buffalo rearing, cow
+ buffalo rearing, buffalo+ sheep rearing, sheep rearing.
In Megalahalli over 37.50 per cent of the respondents had
opted for wage earning in mining areas and 20 per cent to crop
production followed by cow + buffalo+ sheep + poultry (10.00%),
garland making (7.50%), cow rearing (7.50%), about 5.00 per
cent to buffalo rearing and only 2.50 per cent each of the
respondents opted for cow + buffalo rearing, buffalo+ sheep
rearing, sheep rearing, kirani shop, tailoring as an alternative
livelihood option in the study area.
Cow and buffalo rearing is traditionally practiced in the
villages and it is convenient for them. As a result majority of the
farmers were willing to opt for dairy enterprise with cows.
Working in private or in public sector, besides providing regular
income and many times gives better than what one can get from
fragile crop and animal husbandry sources as was found in the
present study. It also gives the sense of security to the family.
Wage earning was observed across all the villages which were
the most commonly observed alternative livelihood option for
landless laboures. As the sample villages are in the close vicinity
of mining areas, obviously the landless and marginal farmers
dependent on those activities for their livelihood earnings.
The opinion survey was conducted to know the constraints
in securing livelihood by the sample households in study
villages. Totally ten major constraints were considered (Table 4)
and analysed using Garrett ranking technique.
327
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci.,24 (3) : 2011
Table 3. Alternative livelihood options for sample households in the study area
Particulars
Chitradurga taluk
Madakaripura
Crop production
Cow rearing
Buffalo rearing
Cow+ buffalo rearing
Buffalo+ sheep rearing
Sheep rearing
Cow +buffalo +sheep rearing+ poultry
Kirani shop
Tailoring
Garland making
Working in mines
i
As supervisor
ii As lorry driver
iii As labour
Total
Tanigehalli
Crop production
Cow raring
Buffalo rearing
Cow+ buffalo
Buffalo + sheep rearing
Sheep rearing
Cow + buffalo + sheep rearing + poultry
Kirani shop
Tailoring
Garland making
Working in mines
i
As supervisor
ii As lorry driver
iii As labour
Total
Holalkere taluk
Kagalgere
Crop production
Cow rearing
Buffalo rearing
Cow + buffalo rearing
Buffalo + sheep rearing
Sheep rearing
Cow + buffalo + sheep rearing + poultry
Kirani shop
Tailoring
Garland making
Working in mines
i
As supervisor
ii As lorry driver
iii As labour
Total
Megalahalli
Crop production
Cow rearing
n = 160
Pooled
Landless
Marginal
Small
Medium
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
7(70.0)
1(10.0)
6(60.00
10(100.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
4(40.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
10(100.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
2(20.0)
2(20.0)
10(100.0)
4(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
9(22.5)
5(12.5)
2(5.0)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
6(15.0)
2(5.0)
14(35.0)
1(2.5)
2(5)
11(27.5)
40(100.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
7(70.0)
2(20.0)
5(50.0)
10(100.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
5(50.0)
1(10.0)
4(40.0)
10(100.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
10(100.0)
3(30.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
7(17.5)
3(7.5)
3(7.5)
2(5.0)
3(7.5)
1(2.5)
3(7.5)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
16(40.0)
2(5)
3(7.5)
11(27.5)
40(100)
1(10.0)
9(90.0)
2(20.0)
7(70.0)
10(100.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
4(40.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
10(100.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
3(30.0)
10(100.0)
4(40.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
10(25)
3(7.5)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
3(7.5)
2(5)
2(5)
16(40.0)
3(7.5)
13(32.5)
40(100)
-
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
8(20)
3(7.5)
Contd...
328
Livelihood systems for rural community in Chitradurga....
Particulars
Buffalo rearing
Cow + buffalo rearing
Buffalo+ sheep rearing
Sheep rearing
Cow+ buffalo + sheep rearing + poultry
Kirani shop
Tailoring
Garland making
Working in mines
i. As supervisor
ii. As lorry driver
iii. As labour
Total
Landless
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
8(80.0)
2(20.0)
6(60.0)
10(100.0)
Marginal
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
3(30.0)
10(100.0)
Small
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
3(30.0)
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
10(100.0)
Medium
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
2(20.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
1(10.0)
10(100.0)
Pooled
2(5)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
4(10)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
3(7.5)
15(37.5)
2(5)
2(5)
11(27.5)
40(100)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage to total
Table 4 presents the results of Garrett ranking analysis of
problems associated with livelihood security of sample
households in Chitradurga district. Here the accessibility to basic
necessities was the major problem expressed by most of the
landless category, so this problem got assigned first rank
followed by lack of hospital facility(II), difficult bank loan
procedure(III), improper supply of electricity (IV), lack of
remunerative prices for farm produce and high price fluctuation
(V), Lack of training on skilled work performance (VI), lack of
government facilities(VII), Lack of transportation facility (VIII),
lack of veterinary facilities(IX) and problem of marketing (X).
Marginal farmers expressed the difficult bank loan procedure
as the major problem so assigned first rank followed by lack of
government facilities (II), lack of basic necessities (III), lack of
veterinary facility (VI), lack of remunerative prices for farm produce
and high price fluctuation (V), lack of hospital facility (VI), lack of
transportation facility (VII), problem of marketing (VIII), improper
supply of electricity (IX) and lack of training on skilled work
performance (X).
Lack of veterinary facility got first rank by the small farmers
followed by lack of basic necessities (II), lack of hospital facility
(III), lack of training on skilled work performance (IV), difficult
bank loan procedure (V), lack of government facilities (VI), lack of
remunerative prices for farm produce and high price fluctuation
(VII), problem of marketing (VIII), lack of transportation facility
(IX) and improper supply of electricity (X).
Lack of veterinary facility got first rank by the medium farmers
followed by lack of hospital facility (II), difficult bank loan
procedure (III), lack of remunerative prices for farm produce and
high price fluctuation (IV), lack of government facilities (V), lack
of basic necessities (VI), problem of marketing (VII), lack of
transportation facility (VIII), lack of training on skilled work
performance (IX) and improper supply of electricity(X).
Overall the majority of the respondents expressed the
accessibility of basic necessities as major problem so this
problem got assigned first rank followed by lack of hospital
facility (II), difficult bank loan procedure (III), lack of veterinary
facilities (IV), lack of remunerative prices for farm produce and
Table 4. Constraints in securing livelihood by the sample households
Particulars
Landless
Marginal
Sum
Lack of Basic necessities
Lack of hospital facility
Lack of remunerative
prices for farm produce
and high price fluctuation
Lack of veterinary facility
Lack of government
schemes
Difficult bank loan
procedures
Lack of transportation
facility
Lack of training on
skilled work performance
Improper supply of
electricity
Problem of marketing
Small
Sum
(Garrett’s scores)
Overall
Medium
Sum
Sum
Sum
of the Mean Ranks of the
scores
scores
2456 61.40
1
2232
Mean Ranks of the
scores
55.80
3
2178
Mean Ranks of the Mean Ranks of the Mean Ranks
scores
scores
54.45
2
2091 52.28
6
2239.25 55.98
1
2325 58.12
2
2216
55.40
4
2082
52.05
3
2216
55.40
2
2209.75 55.24
2
1999 49.97
1684 42.10
5
9
2173
2095
54.33
52.38
5
6
2001
2549
50.03
63.73
7
1
2159
2306
53.98
57.65
4
1
2083 52.08
2158.5 53.96
5
4
1818 45.45
7
2282
57.05
2
2031
50.78
6
2158
53.95
5
2072.25 51.81
6
2210 55.25
3
2323
58.08
1
2042
51.05
5
2187
54.68
3
2190.5 54.76
3
1762 44.05
8
1944
48.60
7
1802
45.05
9
1898
47.45
8
1851.5 46.29
7
1905 47.72
6
1635
40.88
10
2071
51.78
4
1786
44.65
9
1849.25 46.23
8
2023 50.57
1509 37.72
4
10
1665
1717
41.63
42.93
9
8
1794
1897
44.85
47.43
10
8
1755
2081
43.88
52.03
10
7
1809.25 45.23
1801 45.03
9
10
329
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci.,24 (3) : 2011
high price fluctuation (V), lack of government schemes (VI),
lack of transportation facility (VII), lack of training on skilled
work performance (VIII), improper supply of electricity (IX)
and performance problem of marketing (X) in the study area.
In conclusion, Chitradurga is one of the backward
districts in India which is listed among 150 backward districts
identified by the Planning Commission of India. The land
based livelihoods of small and marginal farmers are
increasingly becoming unsustainable. As a result, rural
households are forced to look at alternative means for supplementing
their livelihoods. Hence, there is a need to emphasis in increasing
the cropping intensity and also enhancing the productivity to boost
income from agriculture. In order to reduce over dependency on
mining activity for the livelihood by landless and marginal farmers,
it is necessary to introduce on-farm and off-farm income generating
activities which ensures additional employment and also enhance
income level.
References
Arunkumar, T. D., 2004, Profile of SHGs and their contribution
for livestock development in Karnataka. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric . Sci., Dharwad (India).
Chambers, R. and Conway, G. R., 1992, Sustainable rural livelihoods :
Practical concepts for the 21st Century. Discussion Paper 296,
Institute of Development Studies, London.
Bardhan, D., Srivastava, R. S. L. and Dabas, Y. P. S., 2005, A study
of constraints perceived by farmers in rearing dairy animals.
Indian J. Dairy Sci., 58 (3) : 214-218.
Khattar, P. S. and Sharma., 1992, Socio- economic issues development of
nomadic Gujjars. Indian J. Agric. Econ., 47 (3): 448-449.
Bharathi, R. A., 2005, Assessment of entrepreneurial activities
promoted under NATP on empowerment of women in
agriculture. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad
(India).
Bhattacharya, N., Chakrabarty, P., Chottopadhyay, M. and Rudra,
A., 1991, How do the poor survive. Econ. and Pol. Wkly,
29 (24): 373-379.
Mosse, D., Gupta, S., Mehta, M., Shan, V., Ress, J. and Kribp, T., 2002,
Brokened livelihood debt, labour migration and development in
tribal Western India. J. Dev. Studies, 38 (5) : 59-88.
Ponnuswamy, K. and Jancy Gupta, 2007, Factors associated with
sustainable livelihood parameters in different enterprise
combinations. Indian Vet. J., 84 (12):1289-1291.
Vijayachandran, P. B. and Harikumar, V., 2006, Self help groups in Kerala.
Kurukshetra, 54 (1): 30.
Chakravarty, M. L. and Baig, M. A. A., 1992, Socio- economic
status of Pauri and Deshi Bhaiyan-A study on Keonjhar
district, Orissa. Indian J. Agric. Econ., 47 (3) : 424-425.
330