Show simple item record

dc.contributorCraufurd, Peteren_US
dc.contributorRamilan, Thiagarajahen_US
dc.contributorShalander, Kumaren_US
dc.contributorWhitbread, Anthonyen_US
dc.contributorRathore, Abhisheken_US
dc.contributorBlummel, Michaelen_US
dc.contributorEricksen, Pollyen_US
dc.contributorKrishna Reddy, Kakumanuen_US
dc.creatorHaileslassie, Amareen_US
dc.date2015-08-27en_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-09-20T11:17:00Z
dc.date.available2016-09-20T11:17:00Z
dc.identifierhttps://mel.cgiar.org/reporting/download/hash/xL8c90FGen_US
dc.identifier.citationAmare Haileslassie, Peter Craufurd, Thiagarajah Ramilan, Kumar Shalander, Anthony Whitbread, Abhishek Rathore, Michael Blummel, Polly Ericksen, Kakumanu Krishna Reddy. (27/8/2015). Empirical evaluation of sustainability of divergent farms in the dryland farming systems of India. Ecological Indicators, 60, pp. 710-723.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11766/4968
dc.description.abstractThe present study argues that there are heterogeneous farm systems within the drylands and each farm system is unique in terms of its livelihood asset and agricultural practice, and therefore in sustainability. Our method is based on household survey data collected from 500 farmers in Anantapur and Kurnool Districts, in Andhra Pradesh State of India, in 2013. We carried out principal component analysis (PCA) with subsequent hierarchical clustering methods to build farm typologies. To evaluate sustainability across these farm typologies, we adopted a framework consisting of economic, social and environmental sustainability pillars and associated indicators. We normalized values of target indicators and employed normative approach to assign different weights to these indicators. Composite sustainability indices (CSI) were then estimated by means of weighted sum of indicators, aggregated and integrated into farm typologies. The results suggested that there were five distinct farm typologies representing farming systems in the study area. The majority of farms (>70%) in the study area are small and extensive (typology 1); marginal and off farm based (typology 2). About 20% of the farms are irrigation based and intensive (typology 3); small and medium and off farm based (typology 4) and irrigation based semi-intensive (typology 5). There was apparent variability among farm typologies in terms of farm structure and functions and composite sustainability indices. Farm typologies 3 and 5 showed significantly higher performances for the social and economic indices, while typologies 2 and 4 had relatively stronger values for environment. These discrepancies support the relevance of integrated farm typology- and CSI approaches in assessing system sustainability and targeting technologies. Universally, for all farm typologies, composite sustainability indices for economic pillar was significantly lower than the social and environment pillars. More than 90% of farmers were in economically less-sustainable class. The correlations between sustainability indices for economic and environment were typology specific. It was strong and positive when aggregated for the whole study systems [all samples (r = 0.183; P < 0.001)] and for agriculture dependent farm typologies (e.g. typologies 1 and 3). This suggests the need to elevate farms economic performance and capacitate them to invest in the environment. These results provide information for policy makers to plan farm typology–context technological interventions and also create baseline information to evaluate sustainability performance in terms of progress made over time.en_US
dc.formatPDFen_US
dc.languageenen_US
dc.publisherElsevieren_US
dc.rightsCC-BY-NC-4.0en_US
dc.sourceEcological Indicators;60,(2015) Pagination 710,723en_US
dc.subjectrelative sustainabilityen_US
dc.subjectfarm typologiesen_US
dc.subjectcomposite sustainability indicesen_US
dc.subjectfarm functionen_US
dc.titleEmpirical evaluation of sustainability of divergent farms in the dryland farming systems of Indiaen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
cg.creator.idHaileslassie, Amare: 0000-0001-5237-9006en_US
cg.creator.idShalander, Kumar: 0000-0001-8072-5674en_US
cg.creator.idWhitbread, Anthony: 0000-0003-4840-7670en_US
cg.creator.idRathore, Abhishek: 0000-0001-6887-4095en_US
cg.creator.idEricksen, Polly: 0000-0002-5775-7691en_US
cg.creator.idKrishna Reddy, Kakumanu: 0000-0002-8177-1610en_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.creator.ID-typeORCIDen_US
cg.subject.agrovocevaluationen_US
cg.subject.agrovocfarming systemsen_US
cg.subject.agrovocsustainabilityen_US
cg.subject.agrovocfarm structureen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics - ICRISATen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Livestock Research Institute - ILRIen_US
cg.contributor.centerInternational Water Management Institute - IWMIen_US
cg.contributor.crpCRP on Dryland Systems - DSen_US
cg.contributor.funderNot Applicableen_US
cg.date.embargo-end-date2019-08-27en_US
cg.coverage.regionSouthern Asiaen_US
cg.coverage.countryINen_US
cg.contactA.Haileslassie@cgiar.orgen_US
cg.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.014en_US
dc.identifier.statusLimited accessen_US
mel.impact-factor3.444en_US


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


DSpace software copyright © 2002-2016  DuraSpace
Disclaimer:
MELSpace content providers and partners accept no liability to any consequence resulting from use of the content or data made available in this repository. Users of this content assume full responsibility for compliance with all relevant national or international regulations and legislation.
Theme by 
Atmire NV