This study examines whether technological capital influences livelihood of people in watersheds. Data were collected from 130 watersheds of Orissa (India). Information on dimensions of technological capital and sustainable livelihood was collected using interview schedules and questionnaires. Measures of economic, psychological, social and ecological sustainability assessed sustainable livelihood. Technological capital was assessed on adequacy, professional support, understanding of measures and land use. Results suggest that better technological capital improves sustainable livelihood in the watershed. Understanding of measures increases economic well-being of people, better land use enhances psychological well-being of people and professional support promotes social equity among people. Adequacy of measures, understanding of measures, adequacy of professional support and better use of land improve ecological upkeep of the watershed. Understanding of measures, land use and professional support received are critical technological parameters for influencing more than one sustainability dimension. Ecological sustainability of the watershed enhances psychological well-being of people.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Achouri, M.2006. ‘Next Generation of Watershed Management Programmes: Objectives and Expected Results’, in J. Krecek and M. Haigh (eds), Environmental Role of Wetlands in Headwaters, pp. 301–12. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization .
2.
Bourdieu, P.1986. ‘The Forms of Capital’, in J.G. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for Sociology of Education, pp. 241–58. Westport, C.T.: Greenwood Press .
3.
Buss, D.2000. ‘ The Evolution of Happiness ’, American Psychologist, 55 (1): 15–23 .
4.
Carney, D.2002. Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Progress and Possibilities for Change. London: The UK Department for International Development .
5.
Chambers, R. and G. Conway1992. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies .
6.
Chopra, K. , G.K. Kadekodi and M.N. Murty1988. Sukhomajri and Dhamala Watersheds in Haryana: A Participatory Approach to Management. New Delhi, India: Institute of Economic Growth .
7.
DFID. 2000. Sustainable Livelihoods—Current Thinking and Practice. London: The UK Department for International Development .
8.
Diener, E. , R.A.Emmons , R.J. Larsen and S. Griffen . 1985. ‘ The Satisfaction with Life Scale ’, Journal of Personality Assessment, 49 (1): 71–75 .
9.
FAO. 2000. Inter-agency Experiences and Lessons: From the Forum on Operationalising Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization .
10.
Farrington, J. and C. Lobo . 1997. Scaling up Participatory Watershed Development in India: Lessons from the Indo-German Watershed Development Programme. Natural Resource Perspectives Paper, No. 17. London: Overseas Development Institute .
11.
Fujisaka, S.1989. ‘ The Need to Build upon Farmer Practice and Knowledge: Reminders from Selected Upland Conservation Projects and Policies ’, Agroforestry Systems, 9 (22): 141–53 .
12.
Ghai, D.1994. ‘ Development and Environment: Sustaining People and Nature ’, Development and Change, 25 (1): 1–11 .
13.
Hair, J.E. , R.E. Anderson , R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black . 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis (5th edition). Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall .
14.
Kerr, J.M. , N.K. Sanghi and G. Sriramappa . 1996. Subsidies in Watershed Development Projects in India: Distortions and Opportunities. IIED Gatekeeper Series 61. London: International Institute for Environment and Development .
15.
Kerr, J. , G. Milne , V. Chhotray , P. Baumann and A. J. James . 2007. ‘ Managing Watershed Externalities in India: Theory and Practice ’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 9 (3): 263–81 .
16.
Kline, R.B.1998. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modelling. New York: Guilford Press .
17.
Leach, M. , R. Mearns and I. Scoones . 1999. ‘ Environmental Entitlements: Dynamics and Institutions in Community-based Natural Resource Management ’, World Development, 27 (2): 225–47 .
18.
Lele, S.M.1991. ‘ Sustainable Development: A Critical Review ’, World Development, 16 (6): 607–21 .
19.
Mahdi, G. , P. Shivakoti and D. Schmidt-Vogt . 2008. ‘ Livelihood Change and Livelihood Sustainability in the Uplands of Lembang Subwatershed, West Sumatra, Indonesia in a Changing Natural Resource Management Context ’, Environmental Management, 43 (1): 84–99 .
20.
McDonald, M. and K. Brown . 2000. ‘ Soil and Water Conservation Projects and Rural Livelihoods: Options for Design and Research to Enhance Adoption and Adaptation ’, Land Degradation and Development, 11 (4): 343–61 .
21.
Pangare, G. and V. Pangare . 1991. Participatory Rural Development—Ralegan Siddhi: A Case Study. Anand, India: Institute of Rural Management (Mimeo) .
Perez, C. and H. Tschinkel . 2003. Improving Watershed Management in Developing Countries: A Framework for Prioritising Sites and Practices. Agricultural Research & Extension Network Paper No. 129. London: The Overseas Development Institute .
24.
Prasad, R. , and S. Kant . 2003. ‘ Institutions, Forest Management and Sustainable Human Development—Experiences from India ’, Environment, Development and Sustainability, 5 (3–4): 353–67 .
25.
Pretty, J. and H. Ward.2001. ‘ Social Capital and the Environment ’, World Development, 29 (2): 209–27 .
26.
Reddy, V.G. , S.J. Reddy , J. Galab , J. Soussan and S. Baginski . 2004. ‘ Participatory Watershed Development in India, Can it Sustain Rural Livelihoods? ’ Development and Change, 35 (2): 297–26 .
27.
Rennie, J.K. and N. Singh . 1996. Participatory Research for Sustainable Livelihoods. Winnipeg: International Institute for Sustainable Development .
28.
Sastry, G. , Y.V.R.Reddy , O. Prakash and H.P. Singh . 2002. ‘ Impact of Watershed Development Programme on Biophysical and Economic Factors in India ’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation in India, 1 (4): 296–303 .
29.
Sharma, S.2005. Rethinking Watershed Development in India: Strategy for the Twenty-first Century. Watershed Management and Sustainable Mountain Development Working Paper No. 5, pp. 69–76. Rome, Italy: FAO/ICIMOD .
30.
Sharma, B.R. , J. S.Samra , C.A. Scott and S. P. Wani . 2005. Watershed Management Challenges Improving Productivity, Resources and Livelihoods. New Delhi: Malhotra Publishing House .
31.
Soussan, J. , P. Blaikie , O. Springate-Baginski and M. Chadwick . 2000. Understanding Livelihood Processes and Dynamics: Livelihood-policy Relationships in South Asia. Working Paper 1. London: The UK Department for International Development .
32.
Swallow, B. , D. Garrity and M.V. Noordwijk . 2001. The Effects of Scales, Flows and Filters on Property Rights and Collective Action in Catchment Management. CAPRi Working Paper, No. 18. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute .
33.
Turton, C. , M. Warner and B. Groom . 1998. Scaling up Participatory Watershed Development in India: A Review of the Literature. Agricultural Research and Extension Network Paper No. 86. London: Overseas Development Institute .
34.
UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development. New York: The United Nations Centre for Education and Development .
35.
Verbist, B. , A. Eka , D. Putrs and S. Budidarsono . 2005. ‘ Factors Driving Land Use Change: Effects on Watershed Functions in a Coffee Agro-forestry System in Lampung, Sumatra ’, Agricultural Systems, 85 (3): 254–70 .
36.
Yoganand, B. and T. Gebremedhin . 2006. Participatory Watershed Management for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods in India . Selected Working Paper Presented at the Southern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Orlando, Florida (5–8 February).
