This article was downloaded by: [Jamia Millia Islamia]On: 11 May 2014, At: 03:23Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Agroecology and Sustainable FoodSystemsPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjsa21
Assessing Spatiotemporal Variationin Agricultural Sustainability UsingSustainable Livelihood Security Index:Empirical Illustration from VaishaliDistrict of Bihar, IndiaHaroon Sajjad a , Iffat Nasreen a & Shahzad Ali Ansari ba Department of Geography , Jamia Millia Islamia , New Delhi , Indiab Network GIS, ALNMS , New Delhi , IndiaAccepted author version posted online: 18 Jul 2013.Publishedonline: 15 Nov 2013.
To cite this article: Haroon Sajjad , Iffat Nasreen & Shahzad Ali Ansari (2014) AssessingSpatiotemporal Variation in Agricultural Sustainability Using Sustainable Livelihood Security Index:Empirical Illustration from Vaishali District of Bihar, India, Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems,38:1, 46-68, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.820251
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.820251
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 38:46–68, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 2168-3565 print/2168-3573 onlineDOI: 10.1080/21683565.2013.820251
Assessing Spatiotemporal Variationin Agricultural Sustainability Using Sustainable
Livelihood Security Index: EmpiricalIllustration from Vaishali District of Bihar,
India
HAROON SAJJAD,1 IFFAT NASREEN,1 and SHAHZAD ALI ANSARI21Department of Geography, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, India
2Network GIS, ALNMS, New Delhi, India
This article analyzes spatiotemporal variation in agriculturalsustainability in a backward state of Bihar. It creates a sustainablelivelihood security index (SLSI) for agricultural sustainability andevaluates its existing status at the block level in Vaishali district.The persistently increasing inequality, improper management ofresources, natural calamities, and exponential population growthhave created a significant threat to the successful development ofsustainable agricultural in the study area. SLSI as a compositeindex of its three components of ecological security index (ESI),economic efficiency index (EEI), and social equity index (SEI)works as a powerful policy tool for identifying the necessary con-ditions for sustainable development of agriculture in planning anddevelopment units of Vaishali district, Bihar. SLSI-based spatiotem-poral analysis revealed that there is wide variation in agriculturalsustainability and its three aspects (ESI, EEI, and SEI) within blocksduring 2000–2003 and 2007–2010. SLSI has also proved to beeffective planning instrument for analyzing the performance andchanging status of three aspects of sustainable development of agri-culture in different blocks of the district. SLSI identified blockswhich require immediate attention for sustainable developmentof agriculture (SDA) and helped to focus the priorities for attain-ing livelihood security. Thus, SLSI approach can best be utilizedfor assessing sustainable development of agriculture and creating
Address correspondence to Haroon Sajjad, Department of Geography, Jamia MilliaIslamia, New Delhi 110025, India. E-mail: [email protected]
46
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 47
holistic perspective of environment and socioeconomic developmentof the region.
KEYWORDS SLSI, ecological security, economic efficiency, socialequity, agricultural sustainability, spatiotemporal
1. INTRODUCTION
The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as the “abilityto make development sustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirown needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987,8). This definition has been highly acclaimed and judged by its widespreaduse to see sustainable development as having a major focus on intergener-ational equity. The report of the commission emphasized that human needsare basic and essential for economic growth but it is equally important toshare the resources with the people to sustain them in an equitable manner(Robert et al. 2005). The concept invited some criticism on the plea of beingfluid in its definition. It, therefore, becomes necessary to identify: What is tobe sustained, for how long, and for whom? (Pretty 1995). Agriculture is onesector that influences the environment and, in turn, is impacted by the envi-ronment. Hence, sustainability of human beings and society depends muchon the environmental friendliness of agriculture. In this instance, sustainableagriculture can be considered to be food production that integrates the goalsof environmental health, economic efficiency, and social equity. The recipro-cal principal of sustainable agriculture to meet the food needs of the presentgeneration without compromising the rights of future generations involvesboth stewardship of natural resources by increasing and maintaining thecapacity of environment to keep the food production base unimpaired andenhance human resources by ensuring food security in terms of food avail-ability, accessibility, and utilization of food (United Nations Economic andSocial Commissions for Asia and the Pacific 2009).
Globally, agriculture has witnessed tremendous change during the pastcentury. Since the 1960s, food production has increased at a rate of doublethat of the world population as a result of new agricultural technologiesand, therefore, providing food at lower prices. However, aggregate fig-ures show significant regional variations. In Asia and Latin America, percapita food production has increased by 76% and 28%, respectively. So,the Malthusian theory of “if unrestrained, population growth would even-tually overtake the ability to produce food leading to starvation and war”has been avoided at least at present conditions (Malthus 1798, 10). This rel-ative success in increasing agricultural productivity has, however, broughtwith it substantial environmental challenges (Edwards 1989; Biswas 1994).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
48 H. Sajjad et al.
Land degradation due to over-cropping, over-irrigation, loss of biodiversity,declining agricultural genetic diversity, and climate change are some of thechallenges that potentially threaten the future viability of agricultural sys-tems, particularly at regional and local levels (Department for InternationalDevelopment 2002). With the increasing demand for food projected to dou-ble over the next 50 years (Tilman et al. 2002), availability of food in themarket, access to food, and utilization of food are huge challenges for thesustainability of food production and the environment.
Agriculture is an essential occupation for income and employment indeveloping countries, and particularly the rural poor, and is widely con-sidered to be the major “engine” of economic growth in the majority ofdeveloping countries. Agriculture is both a way of life and principal meansof livelihood for 65% of the Indian population. The new agricultural tech-nology was ushered into the country in the early 1960s and since then hasachieved a tremendous increase in agricultural production through the use ofhigh yielding seed varieties (HYV), chemical fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation,and mechanization, but on the other hand has degraded the environmentand created greater inequality in society.
The sustainable livelihood security index (SLSI) has the potential to func-tion as a litmus to check whether or not certain necessary conditions essentialfor sustainable development are present in a given region or ecosystem.The concept involves evaluation of the current situation and policy require-ments pertaining to sustainable development (Singh and Hiramath 2010).Swaminathan (1991a, 1991b) has defined sustainable livelihood security (SLS)as livelihood options that are ecologically secure, economically efficient, andsocially equitable, underscoring: ecology, economics, and equity dimensions.If ecology, economics, and ethics are the three interrelated dimensionsof sustainability, then the three basic conditions crucial for sustainabledevelopment are ecological security, economic efficiency, and social equity.Ecological security is critical to maintain and improve the resource base ofthe economy. Economic efficiency is essential to guide the use of resources—both human and natural—under current technological conditions to meetthe present developmental needs of society. Social equity is fundamental toensure a more broad-based distribution of economic benefits—both at thepresent and in the future—in the form of secured livelihoods, especially fordisadvantaged economic and social groups. At the micro- and local levels,the critical ingredients of SLS are “adequate stocks and flows of food andcash to meet basic needs” and “access to resources, income, and assets tooffset shocks” (McCracken and Pretty 1988, 14). Ensuring SLS by enablingpeople to meet their own needs will lead to reduced pressure on theenvironment, which, in turn, means that it will be possible for more peopleto meet their livelihood needs in the future (Chambers 1986). This articlemakes an attempt to evaluate the relative sustainability of agriculture in theVaishali district of Bihar using SLSI as an evaluation and policy tool.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 49
2. STUDY AREA
The Vishali district was purposively selected for study because it faceswide inequality, improper management, and over-exploitation of naturalresources, and the explosion of population. These issues have created athreat to ecological balance and economic as well as social status of house-holds in the district. The persistently increasing inequality has become abig threat to the successful development of sustainable agricultural in thestudy area. Vaishali district is located between the latitudes of 25◦29’N and26◦10’N and between 85◦8’E and 85◦33’E longitude with the area of around2036 km2. The district is bounded by river Ganga in the south and Gandakin the west and surrounded by the Muzaffarpur district in the north andSamastipur in the East. There are three subdivisions of the district—Hajipur,Mahnar Bazar, and Lalganj—and 16 blocks—Vaishali, Paterhi belsar, Lalganj,Bhagwanpur, Goraul, Chehrakalan, Mahua, Jandaha, Rajapakar, Raghopur,Biddupur, Desri, Sahdai Buzrug, and Mahnar.
The district has 1,638 revenue villages and 291 Gram Panchayats(Village Parliament). The principal soil orders throughout the region are enti-sols and inceptisols. Vaishali district generally enjoys a bracing and healthyclimate with three well-marked seasons: winter, summer, and rainy season.January is the coldest month when the temperature drops below 5◦C. Thesummer heat is intense and reaches above 40◦C in the month of May andcontinues until the rain comes. The average annual rainfall in this area rangesfrom 100 cm to 150 cm. The land being fertile, no area has been left for wildgrowth and the entire district is devoid of any forest. The district is famousfor banana cultivation. It has a total population of 2.7 million with a decadalgrowth rate of 26.67%. Population density is 1,335 persons per km2. Theproportion of scheduled caste to the total population is 21%. The sex ratioof the total population is 920. Literacy rate is 50.49% (Census of India 2001).Economic classification of population shows that 31% are cultivators, 42%are agricultural laborers, 4.0% are household industry workers, and 23.0%are other workers (Census of India 2011). (See Figure 1.)
3. ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY
For the evaluation of spatiotemporal variation in the relative status of agricul-tural sustainability in the Vaishali district, we followed the relative approachused by UNDP for developing HDI on an inter-country basis (UnitedNations Development Programme 1990, 1992). The Sustainable LivelihoodSecurity Index (SLSI) as a cross-sectional measure to evaluate the relativesustainability status of a given set of entities (Saleth and Swaminathan 1993)justifies as a basic requirement of sustainable development of agriculture.
The analytical approach essential for operationalizing SLS in the formof SLSI is characterized by three propositions of sustainable development
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
50 H. Sajjad et al.
FIGURE 1 Location of study area (color figure available online).
of agriculture (SDA) (Saleth and Swaminathan 1993). First, the three-dimensional conceptions of the SDA are: ecological security, economicefficiency, and social equity in both intra- and interregional contexts. Second,for assessing the dynamic and contextual nature of SDA, sustainability evalu-ation needs to be relative rather than absolute in both time and space. Third,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 51
in an operational context, the multidimensional conception of SDA requiresthe SLSI to be a composite of three interacting component indexes, that is,ecological security index (ESI), economic efficiency index (EEI), and socialequity index (SEI), so that it can take stock of both the conflicts and syner-gies among ecological, economic and equity aspects of SDA (Hatai and Sen2008). Various studies have shown the selection and validation of the indi-cators of these components for the evaluation of sustainable development ofgiven entity (MS Swaminathan Research Foundation 1993; Saleth 1993; Salethand Swaminathan, 1993; Singh and Hiremath 2010).
The SLSI, the exposition of the relative approach to evaluate the relativesustainability status of a given set of entities, is presented below:
Let SLSIij be the index for the i-th component of SLSI related to the j-thentity (households in a village context, districts in a state context, regions ina national context, and nations in a global context) and let Xij be the valueof the variable representing the i-th component of SLSI related to the j-thentity. Then the index for the i-th component of SLSI of the j-th entity canbe calculated as follows:
SLSIijk = Xijk − minkXijk / maxkXijk − minkXijk (1)
where i = variables (1, 2, 3, . . . i), j = components (1, 2, 3, . . . j), and k =blocks (1, 2, 3, . . . k).
Notice that the numerator in (1) measures the extent by which the j-thentity did better in the i-th component of SLSI as compared to the entityshowing the worst performance in that component, and the denominatorindicates the range (i.e., the difference between the maximum and the min-imum values of the variable representing a given component), which is asimple statistical measure of total variation present in the variable represent-ing the i-th component of SLSI. The denominator, in fact, serves as a scaleby which the extent of the better performance of the j-th entity in the i-thcomponent is evaluated. Having calculated the SLSIij for all the components(i = 1, 2, . . . i) and all the sample entities (j = 1, 2, . . . j), the compositeindex, which measures the overall performance of a given entity (SLSIj), canbe calculated as a weighted average of all the component indexes [SLSIij (i =1, 2, . . . i)]; that is,
SLSIjk =
I∑
i=1aijSLSIijk
I(2)
Where j = 1, 2, 3, ......., j and k = 1, 2, 3, ......., kThe aij in Equation (2) denotes the weight assigned to the i-th component ofSLSI of the j-th entity and has the property that: a1j + . . . + aIj = 1. If aij is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
52 H. Sajjad et al.
identical for all i and j and is equal to 1, it means that equal weights is beingassumed.
In view of our three-dimensional conception of SD and, hence, SLS,SLSI will have three component indexes, that is, ESI, EEI, and SEI. Each ofthe three component indexes of SLSI can be based on one or more variablesreflecting the state of affairs in a given dimension. When there are two ormore variables to represent a given component of SLSI, the index for thatcomponent can be formed again by taking either the simple or the weightedaverage of the individual indexes of the representative variables. The choiceof the variables to represent the different components of SLSI is influencedinter alia by their relevance and capacity to represent a given component,availability of data, and the level at which SLSI is constructed.
4. RATIONALE FOR SELECTION OF VARIABLES
Swaminathan (1991b) initially proposed the SLSI, which was later empiricallyillustrated by Saleth and Swaminathan (1993). They made an attempt to for-mulate a comprehensive indicator to reflect the ecological, economic, andequity aspects of sustainable development. Based on the clarifying of relatedconcepts and the availability of blockwise data on the ecological, economic,and social status, we have selected the following relevant indicators for theconstruction of SLSI:
● ecological security indicators: density of population, proportion of forestarea, cropping intensity and livestock density;
● economic efficiency indicators: yield of total agricultural output, proportionof net irrigated area to net sown area, per capita value of agricultural outputand fertilizer consumption;
● social equity indicators: rural female literacy, villages having paved roadfacility and electrified villages.
All the components of SLSI are not measured directly and, thus, relevantindicators are required to assess them. Since the same indicators can beused to assess more than one component, it is essential to evaluate thecriteria for selecting appropriate location specific indicators and examineinterrelationship among them (Table 1).
Sources of the raw data used for the construction of SLSI are shownin Table 2. Density of population is an important indicator of ecologicalsecurity: with a lower population density, the higher the ecological securitywill be. Additionally, working interactively with other factors such as eco-logical endowments and commercialization of agriculture, population mayplace pressure on land resources. Higher or growing population density canthreaten sustainability of protected forest areas and ecologically fragile ormarginal land. Thus, the variable population density was selected in view ofits capacity to reflect the extent of human pressure on overall ecological
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 53
TABLE 1 Components, criteria, and indicators used for measuring agricultural sustainabilityin Vaishali district, Bihar
Components Criteria Indicators∗
1. Ecologicalsecurity
Ecological endowments Density of population(2)Agricultural commercialization
Pressure on land resourcesForest depletion
Land use Cropping intensity (2)Soil fertilityFertilizer consumption
Employment generation Livestock (2)Nutritional securityPressure on environment
2. Economicviability
Food security Agricultural output(1, 3)Nutritional status
ProductionChemical fertilizersSoil statusIncome
Cropping pattern Irrigation (1)Water availabilitySoil salinitySoil alkalinity
Nutritional requirement of crop Fertilizers (1)ProductionSoil health
3. Social equity Preservation of natural and cultural environment Female literacy rate(1, 2)Decision making process
Educational status of the household members
Transport cost Paved roads (2)MarketStorage of production
Assured water supply Electrified villages (2)Increase in production
∗The numbers (1–3) assigned to an indicator identifies the other components with which it is alsointerrelated (e.g., Farshad and Zinck 2001).
security. Forests play a vital role in maintaining ecological balance andcontribute significantly to the state economy. Forest activities contribute sig-nificantly to the food security and livelihood of people living around forests.Since forest occurrence and growth is governed by regional specific physio-graphic conditions, the critical minimum forest cover essential for ensuringecological security does vary across regions. Cropping intensity is one of theindexes of the level of SDA. It measures the extent of land use for croppingpurposes during a given year. Due to development of irrigation facilities,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
54 H. Sajjad et al.
TABLE 2 Sources of data used for constructing SLSI in Vaishali District, Bihar
Sr. Data type Year Source
1. Density of population 2001 Census of India2008∗ Projected
2. Cropping intensity (anaverage of three years)
2000–2003 Agriculture Department, Hajipur2007–2010 Agriculture Department, Hajipur
3. Livestock density 2003 Department of Statistics, Hajipur2007 Department of Statistics, Hajipur
4. Yield of total agriculturaloutput (an average ofthree years)
2000–2003 Agriculture Department, Hajipur2007–2010 Agriculture Department, Hajipur
5. Proportion of net irrigatedarea to net sown area (anaverage of three years)
2000–2003 Agriculture Department, Hajipur2007–2010 Agriculture Department, Hajipur
6. Per capita value ofagricultural output(triennium average)
2000–2003 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Patnaand Agriculture Department, Hajipur, Bihar
2007–2010 Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Patnaand Agriculture Department, Hajipur, Bihar
7. Fertilizer consumption(triennium average)
2000–2003 Agriculture Department, Hajipur2007–2010 Agriculture Department, Hajipur
8. Female literacy 2001 Census of India, New Delhi2008∗ Projected
9. Inhabited villages withpaved road (%)
2001 Census of India, New Delhi
10. Inhabited villages withelectricity (%)
2001 Census of India, New Delhi
more areas have been brought under cultivation and farming communitiescan now raise more than one crop on the same land in the same year. Witha view towards assessing agricultural sustainability in the context of ecolog-ical security, the cropping intensity variable has a significant contribution.Livestock sector plays an important role in the socio economic developmentof a nation by contributing significantly to not only value-added productsin agriculture and allied sectors, but also providing employment, incomeand nutritional security to both urban and rural households. Thus, livestockdensity was selected in view of its capacity to reflect the extent of animalpressure on the overall resources of the environment.
Agricultural output within the district is undoubtedly the most importanteconomic indicator since the higher it is, the lower would be the need fortransporting food and other agricultural products from outside the district tomeet local demand. At the same time, larger food output within each farmhousehold enhances the probability of self-consumption of food within that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 55
household, thus, improving its nutritional status. Since agriculture is depen-dent on climate, it is advisable to take an average of 3–5 years’ data ofagricultural production to take into account the variability of production.Food and non-food production both have been included since non-foodproduction would contribute to the income of households. To account forvariations in population across blocks, the per capita value of agriculturalproduction has been used. Irrigation has a key role in both stabilizingagricultural production and, through an increase in cropping intensity andan associated increase in productivity, improving a district’s food securityposition. It would also provide a better prospect in terms of rural employ-ment. Agricultural output is an indicator reflecting availability of food. Foodand non-food production both are also included for this variable. Optimumuse of fertilizer at the opportune time is an essential ingredient for increasingagricultural productivity. It also protects land fertility by meeting the nutri-tion requirement of crops. Thus, the variable fertilizer consumption plays acrucial role in agricultural sustainability.
Female literacy rate plays a vital role in the process of women empow-erment and national development. It shows the potential not only forwomen’s social and economic participation but for population stabilizationalso. Access to paved roads has a big role in development. It reduces trans-port costs and can reduce transaction costs, with possible positive resultson the prices realized by farmers. By improving communication, roads canincrease the options available to rural producers, connecting them with largernational, regional, and even international markets (United Nations WorldFood Programme 2009). Paved roads can enhance the productivity and valueof land for poor farmers (Jacoby 2000). Marginal government expenditure onroads, in particular, has been found to have the largest positive impact onproductivity growth (Fan et al. 1999). The village electrification scenario inthe state continues to be a matter of concern. Lack of reliable electricity sup-ply dampens the growth impulses in different sectors of the economy.
5. PROCEDURE FOR CALCULATING SUSTAINABLE LIVELIHOODSECURITY INDEX
The indexes for all the representative variables were calculated by a straight-forward application of Equation (1) to the values of the selected indicators(see Tables 3 and 4). The values of indexes for the indicators are shownin Tables 5 and 6. The three component indexes of SLSI (ESI, EEI, SEI) arecalculated by taking the equal weights of the indexes of the respective rep-resentative variables. In calculating these indexes, we have assumed equalweights. SLSI, which is a composite index, was calculated by taking thearithmetic mean of its component indexes following Equation (2). All the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
TAB
LE3
Raw
dat
ause
dfo
rth
eca
lcula
tion
ofSL
SIin
Vai
shal
idis
tric
t,B
ihar
(200
0–20
03)
Eco
logi
calse
curity
indic
ators
Eco
nom
icef
fici
ency
indic
ators
Soci
aleq
uity
indic
ators
Blo
cks
Den
sity
of
popula
tion
(p/sq
.km
.)
Cro
ppin
gin
tensi
ty(%
)
Live
stock
den
sity
(per
sq.k
m)
Yie
ldof
tota
lag
ricu
ltura
loutp
ut
(Qt./
hac
)
Net
irriga
ted
area
(%)
Per
capita
valu
eof
agricu
ltura
loutp
ut
(in
Rs)
1In
dia
nRupee
=$5
4
Fertili
zer
consu
mptio
n(K
g/hac
)
Rura
lfe
mal
elit
erac
y(%
)
Vill
ages
hav
ing
pav
edro
ad(%
)Ele
ctrified
villa
ges
(%)
Haj
ipur
1470
113.
942
414
.133
.957
0.3
467.
243
.061
.671
.7La
lgan
j11
4815
1.7
414
14.0
56.9
822.
945
5.9
35.5
58.3
78.2
Bhag
wan
pur
1371
120.
742
818
.573
.471
9.1
569.
539
.348
.561
.0Vai
shal
i11
5411
5.3
509
26.9
73.7
1032
.254
8.5
36.3
39.4
71.2
Bel
sar
1004
146.
854
520
.668
.113
44.9
513.
834
.437
.760
.4B
idupur
1793
126.
947
917
.494
.742
1.3
411.
439
.335
.686
.0Rag
hopur
820
113.
119
913
.046
.252
2.0
379.
219
.524
.325
.7M
ahua
1559
146.
934
612
.124
.053
7.7
360.
435
.733
.662
.5Raj
apak
ar15
8210
8.4
562
20.1
60.1
787.
453
1.9
37.4
32.9
50.0
Pat
epur
1102
129.
135
319
.554
.887
0.0
520.
928
.127
.850
.7G
ora
ul
1372
134.
059
421
.157
.010
82.4
636.
635
.248
.360
.7Cheh
raka
lan
1476
121.
055
228
.769
.411
65.6
634.
531
.242
.646
.9Ja
ndah
a13
8211
5.9
318
17.4
17.9
718.
833
9.3
36.0
38.2
45.0
Mah
nar
1069
118.
639
622
.224
.511
13.3
419.
637
.944
.376
.0Sa
hdai
Buzr
ug
1146
124.
940
725
.485
.697
1.9
430.
737
.432
.767
.2D
esri
1555
130.
949
523
.139
.095
6.6
426.
836
.632
.275
.6
56
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
TAB
LE4
Raw
dat
ause
dfo
rth
eca
lcula
tion
ofSL
SIin
Vai
shal
idis
tric
t,B
ihar
(200
7–20
10)
Eco
logi
calse
curity
indic
ators
Eco
nom
icef
fici
ency
indic
ators
Soci
aleq
uity
indic
ators
Blo
cks
Den
sity
of
popula
tion
(p/sq
.km
)
Cro
ppin
gin
tensi
ty(%
)
Live
stock
den
sity
(per
sq.k
m)
Yie
ldof
tota
lag
ricu
ltura
l1
outp
ut
(Qt./
hac
)
Net
irriga
ted
area
(%)
Per
capita
valu
eof
agricu
ltura
loutp
ut
(in
Rs)
1In
dia
nRupee
=$5
4
Fertili
zer
consu
mptio
n(K
g/hac
)
Rura
lfe
mal
elit
erac
y(%
)
Vill
ages
hav
ing
pav
edro
adfa
cilit
y(%
)Ele
ctrified
villa
ges
(%)
Haj
ipur
1606
136.
042
19.
837
.368
7.3
608.
465
.661
.671
.7La
lgan
j12
7018
5.2
416
10.0
67.3
1052
.466
9.5
50.8
58.3
78.2
Bhag
wan
pur
1490
140.
542
512
.874
.281
8.5
557.
059
.048
.561
.0Vai
shal
i12
4313
6.5
511
19.3
90.7
1305
.770
4.7
56.3
39.4
71.2
Bel
sar
1181
121.
054
218
.061
.414
67.5
583.
053
.537
.760
.4B
idupur
1958
118.
747
914
.457
.851
4.0
470.
056
.235
.686
.0Rag
hopur
900
116.
519
617
.652
.010
31.0
454.
232
.524
.325
.7M
ahua
1701
170.
835
110
.61.
280
9.8
467.
753
.633
.662
.5Raj
apak
ar17
5414
1.4
573
16.3
64.3
1085
.463
0.9
57.9
32.9
50.0
Pat
epur
1216
142.
636
016
.951
.312
58.0
626.
737
.927
.850
.7G
ora
ul
1511
104.
058
027
.641
.017
11.5
771.
455
.548
.360
.7Cheh
raka
lan
1636
144.
556
118
.774
.511
70.7
701.
749
.142
.646
.9Ja
ndah
a15
1512
9.7
321
16.3
15.7
1071
.456
9.0
56.4
38.2
45.0
Mah
nar
1148
128.
840
215
.919
.111
70.6
681.
351
.844
.376
.0Sa
hdai
Buzr
ug
1232
123.
934
023
.165
.710
13.9
649.
754
.832
.767
.2D
esri
1685
163.
849
915
.235
.196
4.5
578.
553
.532
.275
.6
57
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
TAB
LE5
Index
esva
lues
ofth
esu
stai
nab
ility
indic
ators
inVai
shal
idis
tric
t,B
ihar
(200
0–20
03)
Eco
logi
calin
dex
esEco
nom
icin
dex
esSo
cial
index
es
Blo
cks
Den
sity
of
popula
tion
index
Cro
ppin
gin
tensi
tyin
dex
Live
stock
den
sity
index
Tota
lyi
eld
index
Net
irriga
ted
area
index
Per
capita
valu
eof
agricu
ltura
loutp
ut
index
Fertili
zer
consu
mp-
tion
index
Rura
lfe
mal
elit
erac
yin
dex
Vill
ages
hav
ing
pav
edro
adin
dex
Ele
ctrified
villa
ges
index
Haj
ipur
0.67
0.13
0.57
0.12
0.21
0.16
0.43
1.00
1.00
0.76
Lalg
anj
0.34
1.00
0.54
0.11
0.51
0.43
0.39
0.68
0.91
0.87
Bhag
wan
pur
0.57
0.28
0.58
0.39
0.72
0.32
0.77
0.84
0.65
0.58
Vai
shal
i0.
340.
160.
780.
890.
730.
660.
700.
720.
400.
75Bel
sar
0.19
0.89
0.88
0.51
0.65
1.00
0.59
0.64
0.36
0.57
Bid
upur
1.00
0.43
0.71
0.32
1.00
0.00
0.24
0.84
0.30
1.00
Rag
hopur
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.05
0.37
0.11
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mah
ua
0.76
0.89
0.37
0.00
0.08
0.13
0.07
0.69
0.25
0.61
Raj
apak
ar0.
780.
000.
920.
480.
550.
400.
650.
760.
230.
40Pat
epur
0.29
0.48
0.39
0.45
0.48
0.49
0.61
0.37
0.09
0.41
Gora
ul
0.57
0.59
1.00
0.54
0.51
0.72
1.00
0.67
0.64
0.58
Cheh
raka
lan
0.67
0.29
0.89
1.00
0.67
0.81
0.99
0.50
0.49
0.35
Jandah
a0.
580.
170.
300.
320.
000.
320.
000.
700.
370.
32M
ahnar
0.26
0.23
0.50
0.61
0.91
0.75
0.27
0.78
0.54
0.83
Sahdai
Buzr
ug
0.34
0.38
0.53
0.80
0.88
0.60
0.31
0.76
0.23
0.69
Des
ri0.
760.
520.
750.
660.
280.
580.
290.
730.
210.
83
58
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
TAB
LE6
Index
esva
lues
ofth
esu
stai
nab
ility
indic
ators
inVai
shal
idis
tric
t,B
ihar
(200
7–20
10)
Eco
logi
calin
dex
esEco
nom
icin
dex
esSo
cial
index
es
Blo
cks
Den
sity
of
popula
tion
index
Cro
ppin
gin
tensi
tyin
dex
Live
stock
den
sity
index
Tota
lyi
eld
index
Net
irriga
ted
area
index
Per
capita
valu
eof
agricu
ltura
loutp
ut
index
Fertili
zer
consu
mp-
tion
index
Rura
lfe
mal
elit
erac
yin
dex
Vill
ages
hav
ing
pav
edro
adfa
cilit
yin
dex
Ele
ctrified
villa
ges
Index
Haj
ipur
0.67
0.39
0.59
0.00
0.40
0.14
0.49
1.00
1.00
0.76
Lalg
anj
0.35
1.00
0.60
0.01
0.39
0.45
0.68
0.55
0.91
0.87
Bhag
wan
pur
0.56
0.45
0.60
0.17
0.57
0.25
0.32
1.16
0.65
0.58
Vai
shal
i0.
320.
400.
820.
531.
000.
660.
790.
720.
400.
25Bel
sar
0.27
0.21
0.90
0.46
0.24
0.80
0.41
0.63
0.36
0.57
Bid
upur
1.00
0.18
0.74
0.26
0.15
0.00
0.05
0.72
0.30
1.00
Rag
hopur
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.44
0.57
0.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Mah
ua
0.76
0.82
0.40
0.04
0.00
0.25
0.04
0.64
0.25
0.61
Raj
apak
ar0.
810.
460.
980.
370.
700.
480.
590.
770.
230.
40Pat
epur
0.30
0.48
0.43
0.40
0.44
0.62
0.54
0.16
0.09
0.41
Gora
ul
0.58
0.00
1.00
1.00
0.45
1.00
1.00
0.69
0.64
0.58
Cheh
raka
lan
0.70
0.50
0.95
0.50
0.82
0.55
0.78
0.50
0.49
0.35
Jandah
a0.
580.
320.
330.
360.
160.
470.
360.
720.
370.
32M
ahnar
0.23
0.31
0.54
0.34
0.80
0.55
0.72
0.58
0.54
0.83
Sahdai
Buzr
ug
0.31
0.25
0.38
0.74
0.28
0.42
0.62
0.67
0.23
0.69
Des
ri0.
740.
740.
790.
300.
620.
380.
390.
630.
210.
83
59
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
60 H. Sajjad et al.
indexes were mapped using the Arc GIS 9.2 geographic information system(GIS) software of ESRI.
6. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Agriculture is still an important sector in Bihar since it contributes about16% to state gross domestic product and provides employment to about 70%of the work force in rural areas. The State is characterized by small land-holders in the countryside. More than 90% of farm households belong toa marginal farm category (less than 1 ha land) but own about 44% of thecultivated land in Bihar. During 2004–2011, state agricultural GDP grew atthe annual growth rate of 2.7%. But the growth has not been sustainable,mainly due to floods in 2007 and 2008 and droughts in 2009 and 2010.The development of agriculture in the state has lagged behind due to con-straints like practicing of traditional methods of cultivation, lack of accessto modern technology, low productivity, inadequate capital formation andlow investment, inadequate irrigation facilities, uneconomic size of holdings,widespread illiteracy among farmers, helpless victims of natural calamities,inefficient management of resources, poor performance of extension edu-cation, and inadequate agricultural marketing facilities. A number of centralsponsored projects have already been initiated in the state but they have notyielded the desired results. So, looking to the future, will it be possible tosustain and accelerate current rates of agricultural output without negativelyaffecting the resource base? The SLSI methodology identifies not only thegeneral priorities but also the nature and type of policies to be pursued ineach district in order to enhance its SLS status.
6.1. Relative Performance of SLSI and Its Component Indexes
Spatiotemporal variation and relative performance of SLSI and its componentindexes (ESI, EEI, and SEI) at the block level are presented in Tables 7 and 8and Figure 2. During 2000–2003, high ecological security was found in eightblocks, that is, Goraul, Bidupur, Desri, Mahua, Belsar, Lalganj, Chehrakalan,and Rajapakar. Seven blocks, including Bhagwanpur, Hajipur, Vaishali,Sahdai-Buzrug, Patepur, Jandaha, and Mahnar, came under the medium cat-egory. Only one block, Raghopur, formed the low ecological security region(Figure 2). During the next phase of the study (2007–2010), the ecologicalsecurity declined in Belsar and Goraul mainly due to increasing density ofpopulation and declining cropping intensity. Hajipur and Mahnar changedtheir ecological status from medium to high. The reasons attributed to thischange include am increasing trend in the cropping intensity and decliningtrend in livestock density. Lalganj, Chehrakalan, Rajapakar, Bidupur, Mahua,and Desri remained high in their ecological status during this period, but
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 61
TABLE 7 Blockwise ranking of the ESI, EEI, SEI and SLSI in Vaishali district, Bihar (2000–2003)
ESI EEI SEI SLSI
BlocksESI
valueESIrank
EEIvalue
EEIrank
SEIvalue
SEIrank
SLSIvalue
SLSIrank
Hajipur 0.45 10 0.23 13 0.92 1 0.50 12Lalganj 0.63 6 0.36 12 0.82 2 0.58 6Bhagwanpur 0.48 9 0.55 7 0.69 5 0.57 7Vaishali 0.43 11 0.75 2 0.62 7 0.61 4Belsar 0.65 5 0.69 4 0.52 10 0.63 3Bidupur 0.71 2 0.39 11 0.72 4 0.58 5Raghopur 0.04 16 0.17 14 0.00 16 0.08 16Mahua 0.67 4 0.07 16 0.52 11 0.38 14Rajapakar 0.57 8 0.52 8 0.47 12 0.52 11Patepur 0.39 13 0.51 9 0.29 15 0.41 13Goraul 0.72 1 0.69 3 0.63 6 0.68 1Chehrakalan 0.62 7 0.87 1 0.45 14 0.67 2Jandaha 0.35 14 0.16 15 0.47 13 0.31 15Mahnar 0.33 15 0.63 6 0.72 3 0.57 8Sahdai
Buzrug0.41 12 0.65 5 0.56 9 0.55 10
Desri 0.67 3 0.45 10 0.59 8 0.56 9
TABLE 8 Blockwise ranking of the ESI, EEI, SEI, and SLSI in Vaishali district, Bihar(2007–2010)
ESI EEI SEI SLSI
BlocksESI
valueESIrank
EEIvalue
EEIrank
SEIvalue
SEIrank
SLSIvalue
SLSIrank
Hajipur 0.55 7 0.26 14 0.92 1 0.54 7Lalganj 0.65 5 0.38 10 0.78 3 0.58 4Bhagwanpur 0.53 8 0.33 13 0.80 2 0.53 8Vaishali 0.51 10 0.75 2 0.46 13 0.59 3Belsar 0.46 11 0.48 8 0.52 9 0.48 10Bidupur 0.64 6 0.11 15 0.67 4 0.44 12Raghopur 0.05 16 0.36 11 0.00 16 0.16 16Mahua 0.66 4 0.08 16 0.50 10 0.38 15Rajapakar 0.75 2 0.53 5 0.47 12 0.58 5Patepur 0.40 13 0.50 7 0.22 15 0.39 14Goraul 0.53 9 0.86 1 0.64 6 0.69 1Chehrakalan 0.71 3 0.66 3 0.45 14 0.61 2Jandaha 0.41 12 0.34 12 0.47 11 0.40 13Mahnar 0.36 14 0.60 4 0.65 5 0.54 9Sahdai Buzrug 0.31 15 0.51 6 0.53 8 0.46 11Desri 0.76 1 0.42 9 0.56 7 0.56 6
Lalganj, Mahua, and Bidupur showed a declining trend in their ecologicalsecurity. Bhagwanpur, Vaishali, Patepur, Jandaha, and Sahdai Buzrugremained as medium ecological security blocks. Sahdai Buzrug experienceddecreasing ecological security. Raghopur remained in the category of low
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
FIG
UR
E2
Spat
iote
mpora
lva
riat
ion
inSL
SIan
dits
com
ponen
ts(c
olo
rfigu
reav
aila
ble
onlin
e).
62
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 63
ecological security regions and showed slight improvement (Figure 2A).Thus, in the light of analysis Belsar, Goraul, Lalganj, Bidupur, Sahdai Buzrug,and Raghopur blocks of the district need immediate attention for improvingtheir ecological status. It has been found that the overall ecological securityis decreasing in Vaishali district, although regional disparities are decreasing.
High concentration of economic efficiency during 2000–2003 was foundin six blocks of Chehrakalan, Vaishali, Goraul, Belsar, Sahdai-Buzrug, andMahnar. Bhagwanpur, Rajapakar, Patepur, Desri, Bidupur, and Lalganj werefound to have medium economic efficiency status. Four blocks experiencedlow economic efficiency regions, that is, Hajipur, Raghopur, Jandaha, andMahua. Chehrakalan block was found to have the highest economic effi-ciency among others because of highest yield of total agricultural outputwhereas Mahua block stood the least, having the lowest economic efficiencyin the region because of the lowest yield of total agricultural output. Vaishalistood second and Garaul block stood third in economic efficiency rankingin the district while Belsar, Sahdai-Buzrug, Mahnar, Bhagwanpur, Rajapakar,Patepur, Desri, Bidupur, Lalganj, Hajipur, Raghopur, and Jandaha stood 4ththrough 15th, respectively (Table 7). Remarkable regional variation wasfound in economic efficiency among blocks of the district from 2000–2003 to2007–2010. Belsar and Sahdai Buzrug have experienced medium status.Bhagwanpur and Bidupur have changed their economic efficiency charac-ter from medium to low. The data reveals that in these blocks yield andproportion of net irrigated area to the net sown area have declined from2000–2003 to 2007–2010. Raghopur, which was low in economic efficiencyin 2000–2003, gained the status of a medium economic efficiency region.Vaishali, Goraul, Chehrakalan, and Mahnar remained as high economic effi-ciency regions. However, Chehrakalan and Mahnar showed declining EEI.Lalganj, Patepur, Rajapakar, and Desri remained as medium economic effi-ciency regions, while Hajipur, Mahua, and Jandaha remained low economicefficiency regions (Figure 2B). Hence, Belsar, Sahdai Buzrug, Bhagwanpur,Bidupur, Raghopur, Chehrakalan, Mahnar, and Desri are priority areas forimproving economic efficiency.
During first phase of the study (2000–2003), high social equity wasobserved in Hajipur, Lalganj, Mahnar, Bidupur, Bhagwanpur, Goraul, andVaishali. Desri, Sahdai-Buzrug, Belsar, Mahua, Rajapakar, Jandaha, andChehrakalan were found to have medium social equity. Two blocks wereunder low social equity regions, that is, Patepur and Raghopur. Duringthe next phase of the period (2007–2010), only Vaishali had become amedium social equity region from high social equity region. Lalganj, Bidupur,Goraul, Bhagwanpur, Hajipur, and Mahnar have remained as high socialequity regions. Belsar, Chehrakalan, Mahua, Rajapakar, Jandaha, Desri, andSahdai Buzrug have maintained their status as medium social equity regionswhile Raghopur and Patepur have remained as low social equity regions(Figure 2C). The analysis shows that in all the blocks the social equity is
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
64 H. Sajjad et al.
declining except in Bhagwanpur. Therefore, social development needs to beencouraged in the study area.
Tables 7 and 8 show ecological, economic, and social equity,and sustainable livelihood security indexes status during 2000–2003 and2007–2010, respectively. During the first phase of the study (2000–2003),the 12 blocks of Vaishali, Belsar, Goraul, Chehrakalan, Lalganj, Bhagwanpur,Hajipur, Rajapakar, Bidupur, Desri, Sahdai Buzrug, and Mahnar were foundto have high SLSI ranks. Three blocks (Mahua, Patepur, and Jandaha) con-stituted those having medium SLSI ranks while only one block (Raghopur)was found to have a low SLSI rank. During the next phase of the study(2007–2010), Belsar, Bidupur, and Sahdai Buzrug had become medium SLSIregions and slipped from their ranks of 3rd, 5th, and 10th to 10th, 12th,and 11th rank, respectively, over the entire period. Vaishali, Lalganj, Goraul,Chehrakalan, Hajipur, Rajapakar, and Desri maintained their status as highSLSI regions and improved their SLSI ranks while Bhagwanpur and Mahnarshowed declining SLSI ranks. Goraul and Chehrakalan retained their posi-tions as getting first and second highest SLSI ranking respectively. Mahua,Patepur and Jandaha remained as medium SLSI regions. Jandaha improvedits SLSI rank while Mahua and Patepur showed a declining trend in theirSLSI ranks. Raghopur retained its lowest position and has not shown anysign of improvement in SLSI (Figure 2D). Raghopur, Belsar, and Bidupurblocks of the district must be taken as priority areas for improving agriculturalsustainability. Raghopur was ranked 16th in 2000–2003 and remained at thesame position by 2007–2010. It has the lowest SLSI ranking because of itsvery low ESI, SEI, and EEI. Hence, ecological, economic, and social devel-opments require immediate attention in Raghopur. Belsar ranked 3rd in thefirst phase of the study, but slipped to 10th in the second phase of thestudy because its ESI and EEI both have declined tremendously. Similarly,another block, like Bidupur, has lost its position in SLSI from 5th rank in2000–03 to 12th rank in 2007–1200. It has experienced remarkable declinein ESI and EEI ranks during the entire period. Hence, Belsar and Bidupurblocks require policy intervention for both economic and ecological devel-opment. Goraul though obtained the highest rank in SLSI but its ESI hasdeclined from 1st in 2000–2003 to 9th in 2007–2010. Chehrakalan, the sec-ond highest SLSI region registered a decline in EEI from 1st in 2000–2003 to3rd in 2007–2010. Vaishali experienced improvement in its SLSI but its SEIhas declined during the reference period. Thus, unless proper ecologicalrestoration in Goraul, economic development in Chehrakalan, and socialstatus improvement in Vaishali is initiated, the livelihood security of theseblocks will not be sustained in the long run. Lalganj and Rajapakar blocksthough have improved their SLSI ranks during the entire period of the studybut their ESI have declined, warranting social equity work in these blocks.Another block (Bhagwanpur) experienced decline in SLSI due to decreasingEEI, dropping from 7th in 2000–2003 to 13th in 2007–2010, thus, warranting
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 65
special attention for improving the economic status of the block. Manharand Patepur blocks of the district have witnessed decline in their ESI and SEIranks, attracting attention for ecological restoration and social developmentin the regions. Sahdai Buzrug and Mahua have registered declines in theirSLSI status due to low ESI and EEI ranks during the study period. These twoblocks require policy intervention for improving economic efficiency andecological restoration for sustainable agricultural development.
7. POLICY IMPLICATIONS
SLSI as a policy tool, identifies not only the regions requiring immediateattention but also the specific thematic areas in which the efforts couldbe focused to attain livelihood security (Singh and Hiremath 2010), It alsohelps in establishing interregion priorities for the allocation of agriculturalresources and prioritizes the activities and programs relevant to each regionfor sustainable agricultural development (Hatai and Sen 2008).
The SLSI ranking implied that Goraul, Chehrakalan, Vaishali, Lalganj,Rajapakar, Desri, Hajipur, Bhagwanpur, and Mahnar showed better perfor-mance in agricultural sustainability. All these blocks have a SLSI of morethan 5.0 and were identified as advanced blocks having the best condi-tions for sustainable development of agriculture. Similarly, the blocks withan SLSI lower than 5.0 were identified as depressed blocks possessing poorconditions for sustainable development of agriculture during the referenceperiod (Table 9). The study reveals that Belsar, Bidupur, Raghopur, Mahua,
TABLE 9 Thematic areas for sustainable agricultural development in Vaishali district
Priority in the components of SLSI
Blocks ESI EEI SEI
Hajipur √Lalganj √Bhagwanpur √Vaishali √Belsar √ √Bidupur √ √Raghopur √ √ √Mahua √ √Patepur √ √Jandaha √Sahdai Buzrug √ √Goraul √Chehrakalan √Mahnar √ √Rajapakar √Desri √
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
66 H. Sajjad et al.
Patepur, Jandaha, and Sahdai Buzrug, with SLSI less than 5.0, are the pri-ority blocks of the district that require immediate attention for sustainingagricultural development in the district. All these blocks require immediateattention for ecological restoration and socioeconomic development. Belsarand Sahdai Buzrug should be given priority for improving ecological status.Afforestation, agroforestry, cropping intensity, productivity enhancement,and livestock development should be promoted for improving ecologicalstatus in these blocks. Bidupur, Jandaha, and Mahua should be consideredfor prioritizing economic efficiency. Attempts should be made to diversifycrops and to provide subsidy for agricultural inputs in terms of irriga-tion, high yielding variety of seeds, fertilizer, insecticides, and pesticidesfor increasing economic efficiency of these blocks. Social equity programssuch as better education, health facilities, sanitary living environment, andrural infrastructure for both road connectivity and electrification should beaccorded higher priority in Raghopur and Patepur. Advanced blocks of thedistrict also require policy interventions for long-term sustainable develop-ment of agriculture. In Goraul and Mahnar, ecological restoration shouldbe accorded higher priority over economic and social orientation programs.Likewise, in Chehrakalan, Vaishali, and Rajapakar social equity programsshould be accorded higher priority over ecological restoration and eco-nomic development of the blocks while in Lalganj, Desri, Hajipur, andBhagwanpur priority should be given to improve economic efficiency statusover ecological and social oriented programs.
8. CONCLUSIONS
SLSI as a composite index of its three components of ESI, EEI and SEIworked as a powerful policy tool for identifying the necessary conditions forsustainable development of agriculture in planning and development unitsof Vaishali district. SLSI-based spatiotemporal analysis revealed that there hasbeen wide variation in agricultural sustainability and its three aspects (ESI,EEI, and SEI) within blocks during the reference period. Construction of SLSIusing time series data has helped to assess the progress of different develop-ment interventions between 2000 and 2003 and 2007 and 2010. SLSI has alsoproven to be an effective planning instrument for analyzing the performanceand changing status of three aspects of sustainable development of agricul-ture in different blocks of the district. SLSI identified blocks which requireimmediate attention for SDA and helps to focus the priorities for attain-ing livelihood security. Belsar, Bidupur, Raghopur, Mahua, Patepur, Jandaha,and Sahdai Buzrug were found to have poor conditions for sustainabledevelopment of agriculture during the reference period. These blocks, thus,call for timely policy interventions in their respective thematic areas (ESI,EEI, and SEI). The study also identified the priority areas for the blocks that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
Assessing Ag Sustainability Using SLSI 67
have performed better in SDA. For instance, in Goraul and Mahnar, eco-logical restoration; in Chehrakalan, Vaishali, and Rajapakar, social equity;in Lalganj, Desri, Hajipur, and Bhagwanpur, economic efficiency should begiven higher priority. Thus, the SLSI approach can best be utilized for assess-ing sustainable development of agriculture and creating a holistic perspectiveof environment and socioeconomic development of the region.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Agriculture Department, Hajipur and Directorate of Economics and Statistics,Patna are duly acknowledged for providing the necessary data for the study.We are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive commentsand suggestions, which helped to improve the quality of the present work.
REFERENCES
Biswas, M. R. 1994. Agriculture and environment: A review, 1972–1992. AMBIO23:192–197.
Census of India. 2001. Primary Census Abstract. Office of the Registrar General andCensus Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Census of India. 2011. Primary Census Abstracts. Office of the Registrar General andCensus Commissioner, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.
Chambers, R. 1986. Sustainable livelihoods: An opportunity for the World Commissionon Environment and Development. Brighton, UK: Institute of DevelopmentStudies, University of Sussex.
Department for International Development. 2002. Sustainable agriculture. Resourcemanagement keysheet 10. London: DFID.
Directorate of Agriculture. 2000–2010. Agricultural inputs. Ministry of Agriculture,Hajipur, Government of Bihar.
Directorate of Economics and Statistics. 2000–2010. Agricultural statistics.Department of Planning and Development, Patna, Government of Bihar.
Edwards, C. A. 1989. The importance of integration in sustainable agriculturalsystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 27:25–35.
Fan, S., P. B. R. Hazell, and S. Thorat. 1999. Linkages between government spending,growth and poverty in rural India. Washington, DC: International Food PolicyResearch Institute.
Farshad, A., and J. A. Zinck. 2001. Assessing agricultural sustainability using the six-pillar model: Iran as a case study. In Agroecosystem sustainability: Developingpractical strategies, ed. S. R. Gliessman, 137–150. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Hatai, L. D., and C. Sen. 2008. An economic analysis of agricultural sustainability inOrissa. Agricultural Economics Research Review 21:273–282.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
68 H. Sajjad et al.
Jacoby, H. 2000. Access to rural markets and the benefits of rural roads. TheEconomic Journal 110:713–737.
Malthus, T. 1798. An essay on the principle of population: As it affects the futureimprovement of society with remarks on the speculations of Mr. Godwin, M.,Conclorect, and other writers. London: Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project.
McCracken, J. A., and J. N. Pretty. 1988. Glossary of selected terms in sustainableagriculture. London: International Institute of Environment and Development.
MS Swaminathan Research Foundation. 1993. Annual report 1992–93. Madras, India:MS Swaminathan Research Foundation.
Pretty, J. 1995. Regenerating agriculture: Policies and practices for sustainability andself-reliance., London: Earthscan.
Robert, W. K., M. P. Thomas, and A. L. Anthony. 2005. What is sustainable develop-ment? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policyfor Sustainable Development 47(3):8–21.
Saleth, R. M., and M. S. Swaminathan. 1993. Sustainable livelihood security at thehousehold level: Concept and evaluation methodology. In Proceedings of aninterdisciplinary dialogue on ecotechnology and rural employment eds. M. S.Swaminathan, 105–122. Madras, India, April 12–15.
Singh, P. K., and B. N. Hiremath. 2010. Sustainable livelihood security index ina developing country: A tool for development planning. Ecological Indicators10:442–451.
Swaminathan, M. S. 1991a. Greening of the mind. Indian Journal of Social Work52:401–407.
Swaminathan, M. S. 1991b. From Stockholm to Rio de Janeiro: The road to sustainableagriculture. Monograph No. 4. Madras, India: MS Swaminathan ResearchInstitution.
Tilman, D., K. G. Cassman, P. A. Matson, R. Naylor, and S. Polsky. 2002. Agriculturalsustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.
United Nations Development Programme. 1990. Human development report, 1990.New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Development Programme. 1992. Human development report, 1992.New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Economic and Social Commissions for Asia and the Pacific. 2009.Sustainable agriculture and food security in Asia and the Pacific. http://www.unescap.org (accessed August 17, 2012).
United Nations World Food Programme. 2009. Food security atlas of rural Bihar.New Delhi, India: Institute for Human Development.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our common future.New York: Oxford University Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Jam
ia M
illia
Isl
amia
] at
03:
23 1
1 M
ay 2
014
