IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v111y2020ics1389934118301588.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Indigenous people’s attachment to shifting cultivation in the Eastern Himalayas, India: A cross-sectional evidence

Author

Listed:
  • Pandey, Dileep Kumar
  • Kumar De, Himansu
  • Dubey, Shantanu Kumar
  • Kumar, Bagish
  • Dobhal, Shivani
  • Adhiguru, P.

Abstract

Shifting cultivation (SC), or swidden, continues to be a predominant agricultural practice in some parts of North-East India despite efforts by the state to discourage that practice. The indigenous people persist in practising SC because it is part of their culture and traditions, because SC means much more to them than a means of livelihood, and also because of the lack of any worthwhile alternative. Empirical analysis revealed that such attachment or bonding takes three forms, namely nature-bonding (attachment to the natural landscape), social bonding (attachment to the local community and traditions), and economic bonding (attachment to the form of livelihood and to the place). In descending order of importance, the reasons were social bonding, lack of alternative livelihoods, economic bonding, and nature-bonding. The study – based on a survey of 500 respondents drawn from 52 villages, representing six states of North-East India –showed that SC is not merely an alternative method of farming but a form of landscape management that has not only evolved over centuries of experimentation but is also inseparable from the culture and the way of life of those who continue to practise SC. Even more important, contrary to the popular notion held by state officials and other agencies, SC provides a sustainable means of livelihood and food security to the indigenous people.

Suggested Citation

  • Pandey, Dileep Kumar & Kumar De, Himansu & Dubey, Shantanu Kumar & Kumar, Bagish & Dobhal, Shivani & Adhiguru, P., 2020. "Indigenous people’s attachment to shifting cultivation in the Eastern Himalayas, India: A cross-sectional evidence," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118301588
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102046
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118301588
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102046?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ramkissoon, Haywantee & Graham Smith, Liam David & Weiler, Betty, 2013. "Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 552-566.
    2. Mavhura, Emmanuel & Mushure, Sharon, 2019. "Forest and wildlife resource-conservation efforts based on indigenous knowledge: The case of Nharira community in Chikomba district, Zimbabwe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 83-90.
    3. Jennifer A. Fresque‐Baxter & Derek Armitage, 2012. "Place identity and climate change adaptation: a synthesis and framework for understanding," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 251-266, May.
    4. Barrett, C. B. & Reardon, T. & Webb, P., 2001. "Nonfarm income diversification and household livelihood strategies in rural Africa: concepts, dynamics, and policy implications," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 315-331, August.
    5. Sulistyawati, Endah & Noble, Ian R. & Roderick, Michael L., 2005. "A simulation model to study land use strategies in swidden agriculture systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 271-288, September.
    6. Sunderlin, William D. & Angelsen, Arild & Belcher, Brian & Burgers, Paul & Nasi, Robert & Santoso, Levania & Wunder, Sven, 2005. "Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1383-1402, September.
    7. Klemick, Heather, 2011. "Shifting cultivation, forest fallow, and externalities in ecosystem services: Evidence from the Eastern Amazon," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 95-106, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dileep Kumar Pandey & Shantanu Kumar Dubey & Ashwani Kumar Verma & Lobsang Wangchu & Sreenath Dixit & Chabungbam Victoria Devi & Gajanan Sawargaonkar, 2023. "Indigenous Peoples’ Psychological Wellbeing Amid Transitions in Shifting Cultivation Landscape: Evidence from the Indian Himalayas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-17, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Soltani, Arezoo & Angelsen, Arild & Eid, Tron & Naieni, Mohammad Saeid Noori & Shamekhi, Taghi, 2012. "Poverty, sustainability, and household livelihood strategies in Zagros, Iran," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 60-70.
    2. Felkner, John S. & Lee, Hyun & Shaikh, Sabina & Kolata, Alan & Binford, Michael, 2022. "The interrelated impacts of credit access, market access and forest proximity on livelihood strategies in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Wunder, Sven & Angelsen, Arild & Belcher, Brian, 2014. "Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 1-11.
    4. Nerfa, Lauren & Rhemtulla, Jeanine M. & Zerriffi, Hisham, 2020. "Forest dependence is more than forest income: Development of a new index of forest product collection and livelihood resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Torres, Bolier & Günter, Sven & Acevedo-Cabra, Ricardo & Knoke, Thomas, 2018. "Livelihood strategies, ethnicity and rural income: The case of migrant settlers and indigenous populations in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 22-34.
    6. Tesfaye, Yemiru & Roos, Anders & Campbell, Bruce M. & Bohlin, Folke, 2011. "Livelihood strategies and the role of forest income in participatory-managed forests of Dodola area in the bale highlands, southern Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 258-265, April.
    7. Musinguzi, Peter & Bosselmann, Aske Skovmand & Pouliot, Mariève, 2018. "Livelihoods-conservation initiatives: Evidence of socio-economic impacts from organic honey production in Mwingi, Eastern Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 132-145.
    8. Kim-Bakkegaard, Riyong & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Wunder, Sven & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2017. "Comparing tools to predict REDD+ conservation costs to Amazon smallholders," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 48-61.
    9. Wenjia Peng & Brian E. Robinson & Hua Zheng & Cong Li & Fengchun Wang & Ruonan Li, 2019. "Telecoupled Sustainable Livelihoods in an Era of Rural–Urban Dynamics: The Case of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    10. Jan Fałkowski & Maciej Jakubowski & Paweł Strawiński, 2014. "Returns from income strategies in rural Poland," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 22(1), pages 139-178, January.
    11. Helene Bie Lilleør, 2008. "Can Future Uncertainty Keep Children Out of School?," CAM Working Papers 2008-06, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Applied Microeconometrics.
    12. Almeida, Alexandre N. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E., 2019. "Agricultural productivity, shadow wages and off-farm labor decisions in Nicaragua," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 99-110.
    13. Kamaldeen Mohammed & Evans Batung & Moses Kansanga & Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong & Isaac Luginaah, 2021. "Livelihood diversification strategies and resilience to climate change in semi-arid northern Ghana," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(3), pages 1-23, February.
    14. Bagamba, Fredrick & Burger, Kees & Kuyvenhoven, Arie, 2007. "Determinants of smallholder farmer labour allocation decisions in Uganda," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7920, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Tesfaye, Wondimagegn & Tirivayi, Nyasha, 2020. "Crop diversity, household welfare and consumption smoothing under risk: Evidence from rural Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    16. Wu, Yu & Mullan, Katrina & Biggs, Trent & Caviglia-Harris, Jill L. & Harris, Daniel & Sills, Erin O., 2018. "Do Forests Provide Watershed Services to Local Populations in the Humid Tropics? Evidence from the Brazilian Amazon," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274012, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Pouliot, Mariève & Treue, Thorsten, 2013. "Rural People’s Reliance on Forests and the Non-Forest Environment in West Africa: Evidence from Ghana and Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 180-193.
    18. Zeeshan & Geetilaxmi Mohapatra & Arun Kumar Giri, 2022. "How Farm Household Spends Their Non-farm Incomes in Rural India? Evidence from Longitudinal Data," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(4), pages 1967-1996, August.
    19. Wouterse, Fleur, 2010. "Internal migration and rural service provision in northern Ghana:," IFPRI discussion papers 952, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    20. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934118301588. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.