Abstract
The relationship between climate change, livelihood diversification and well-being in rural areas is important. Research shows that households with diversified livelihoods are less vulnerable to climate change impacts (Beltrán-Tolosa et al., 2022). Strategies like diversifying agricultural practices and seeking additional sources of income increase household wealth and well-being (Neudert et al., 2015). However, diversification benefits may be limited for households with high levels of well-being (Peng et al., 2022). Rural communities facing climate change impacts on agriculture and food security have implemented adaptation strategies, including growing drought-tolerant crops, using water harvesting techniques and integrating livestock (Kangalawe & Lyimo, 2013). The connection between climate change, livelihood diversification and well-being is particularly important in vulnerable regions like Odisha, India. In their book, ‘Climate Change, Livelihood Diversification and Well-Being: The Case of Rural Odisha’, Mitra et al. explore how rural communities in Odisha adapt to climate variations through livelihood diversification. This book is written based on their exploratory study of these issues in the context of Odisha, India. The study findings are crucial for addressing climate-related events threatening traditional livelihoods and rural populations’ well-being. Understanding these dynamics is essential for developing sustainable development policies that enhance resilience globally.
Odisha, an eastern state of India, is vulnerable to climate change due to its geography and socioeconomic conditions. Rural communities, reliant on agriculture and natural resources, are particularly at risk (Patel, 2016; Sharma et al., 2014). Odisha has already experienced climate-related disasters, hindering development and poverty reduction efforts (Patel, 2016). Vulnerability levels differ across districts, influenced by factors such as poverty rates, borrowing levels, degree of crop diversity and access to agricultural insurance (Acharya & Das, 2020; Panda, 2017). Climate vulnerability also affects household nutrition by impacting agricultural production (Acharya & Das, 2020). To address these challenges, diversifying livelihoods and implementing climate change policies are crucial for managing risks and enhancing resilience. Mitra et al.’s book examines how Odisha’s communities adapt to climate change, emphasising the importance of livelihood diversification for resilience and well-being. It provides a valuable case study for local policymakers and contributes to the global discourse on climate change adaptation in vulnerable regions.
The book comprises six chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the impact of climate change on the livelihood and well-being of the rural poor in Odisha. This chapter outlines the theoretical framework and background of the research, emphasising the significance of understanding the relationship between climate change and livelihood diversification. Livelihood, a diverse portfolio of activities and social support capabilities that enable survival and improve living standards, can be severely impacted by climate change, particularly in traditional livelihoods such as agriculture. The authors review the literature on sustainable livelihood diversification and climate change, highlighting the complex interplay of the two. The review includes various aspects such as seasonality, risk strategies, labour market returns, asset strategies, credit market behaviour and farm–non-farm interlinkages. The chapter describes the data and methodology used in the study, including primary and secondary sources. It overviews Odisha’s macroeconomic conditions, the region’s structural and geographical factors and economic performance. The chapter concludes by emphasising the importance of understanding the impact of climate change on rural livelihoods and the potential for livelihood diversification as a coping strategy. It highlights the need for policies and interventions that support diversification and promote sustainable development in rural areas.
Chapter 2 explores the research methodology used to assess climate change’s impact on Odisha’s rural livelihoods. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis. Four districts were selected based on their distinct geographical and bio-physiological characteristics: Dhenkanal, Angul, Sambalpur and Bargarh. The study surveyed 1,200 rural households using a multi-stage sampling process. Data were collected through extensive rural household surveys, surveys of both women and men within households, surveys of non-farm enterprises, collection of village information and surveys of migrants in nearby urban areas. The research was conducted in two phases: an initial qualitative survey followed by a rigorous quantitative survey. The surveys focussed on livelihood indicators, climatic stress, well-being and gender relations. The study’s findings highlight significant disparities in livelihoods between Odisha’s southwest and coastal regions, attributed to different climate shocks and institutional variations. In the KBK districts, where literacy rates are low, households have diversified their livelihoods in response to frequent droughts and erratic rainfall, as there are limited job opportunities and underdeveloped agriculture. Migration has emerged as a key strategy for livelihood diversification in these regions. The chapter emphasises the importance of ongoing research into the effects of climate change on rural livelihoods, particularly in relation to climate-induced disasters such as cyclones and floods, which have increasingly displaced communities and forced them to adapt to new occupations and lifestyles.
Chapter 3 of the book focuses on the perception of climate change and adaptation strategies explored in the study. This region is vulnerable to extreme weather events that impact its agriculture-dependent economy and livelihoods. The study aims to understand how rural communities perceive climate change, the factors influencing these perceptions and how they adapt. The findings reveal mixed perceptions among the rural population. While 37.7% of respondents believe there has been an increase in surface temperatures over the past 20 years, a larger portion (44%) reported a perceived decrease. Similarly, perceptions of rainfall variability were inconsistent, with 66% noting a decline in annual rainfall, but only 10% observed an increase. Those with better access to irrigation, forest cover and proximity to rivers were less likely to agree with the perceived decline in rainfall, suggesting that local environmental factors significantly shape climate perceptions. The study also identifies key factors influencing these perceptions, including education, access to extension services, civil society presence, age and gender. Accurately perceiving climatic changes is crucial for successful adaptation, highlighting the importance of education and climate information services in promoting effective responses to climate change. Regarding adaptation strategies, the study found that rural households unintentionally adapt to climate change by changing farming, animal husbandry and forestry practices. Common strategies include adjusting planting dates, changing crop varieties and altering livestock management practices. However, the study also highlights significant barriers to adaptation, particularly the lack of financial resources and labour shortages, which rural households ranked as the most serious constraints. These findings indicate that addressing financial and informational barriers is essential for enhancing the resilience of rural communities to climate change in Odisha.
Chapter 4 of this book examines the diversification of households’ livelihoods in Odisha, India. It focuses the findings on four aspects: the number of livelihood activities, individual-level diversification, seasonal allocation of labour and diversification across different months. The findings show that most households engage in multiple livelihood activities, with the level of diversification varying by district. Cultivation is the most common primary occupation, followed by non-farm rural wage employment and agricultural labour. Unemployment rates are particularly high among individuals with less education. The labour allocation also varies across seasons, with more household heads engaged in agricultural labour during the kharif season. Agricultural labour fluctuates across months depending on the cultivation pattern, peaking in October and declining till December. These findings have important implications for policymakers and practitioners working to reduce poverty and promote livelihood diversification in rural areas. The chapter provides a comprehensive analysis, uses various statistical methods and offers a detailed overview of diversification. However, further discussion on the policy implications and exploring the reasons behind high unemployment among less educated individuals could be beneficial. Future studies can expand on this research by examining the impact of livelihood diversification on poverty reduction and household well-being, the role of access to credit and markets in promoting diversification, and variations in livelihood diversification across different regions and communities in Odisha.
Chapter 5 explores the relationship between climate change, diversification strategy and well-being, measured explicitly through consumption outcomes. The authors argue that occupational diversification is crucial for households dealing with crisis and seasonal stress, especially those reliant on livelihood sources affected by seasonal factors and vulnerable to climate change. The chapter is divided into five sections, which provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of occupational diversification in enhancing well-being. These sections cover the job profile and diversification of sample households, the distribution of households based on consumption patterns and the factors influencing changes in calorie intake. The main findings underscore the significance of occupational diversification in adapting to climate change. Although the number of households engaged in an activity varies throughout the year due to the seasonality of agricultural activities and the stability of non-farm sector livelihoods, the level of occupational diversification is not correlated with household income. However, the number of activities the household head pursues is positively associated with average annual income, but only up to a certain point. Additionally, a significant percentage of households consume less than the minimum threshold of 24,000 kcal, and changes in consumption are influenced by individual efforts to enhance income and cope with fluctuations. The response to these consumption changes differs among religious and caste groups, with better-off households demonstrating more effective responses than those in poorer living conditions. Overall, the chapter emphasises the importance of occupational diversification and income-enhancing strategies in improving well-being, as measured by consumption outcomes, in the face of climate change.
Chapter 6 presents the study’s key findings, emphasising the crucial role of livelihood diversification in coping with climate change. However, it also reveals that this practice is often a response to distress rather than a deliberate choice. One reason is the lack of awareness and information among rural households in Odisha, who are largely unaware of climate change and its impacts. The study shows that livelihood diversification is influenced by factors such as age, education, caste and land ownership, but not by gender. Despite these challenges, households that engage in livelihood diversification experience improvements in their consumption patterns, important for overall well-being. However, a significant proportion of households in Odisha consume fewer calories per day than required, indicating a higher poverty rate than officially reported.
To overcome these challenges, the study recommends a multi-faceted approach that addresses the information, financial and infrastructure gaps hindering rural households’ ability to adapt to climate change. First, the government and multilateral agencies should provide information on climate change and its impacts on rural households, enabling them to make informed decisions about adaptation strategies. Second, rural households should have easy access to institutional finance to support adaptation activities, focussing on water-saving activities to promote water conservation. Additionally, the government should create opportunities for gainful employment, such as through MGNREGA, to support livelihood diversification and reduce distress diversification. Moreover, the government should initiate schemes to supplement income and augment consumption, especially for households that consume fewer calories daily than required. Finally, investing in rural construction and irrigation programmes can create livelihood opportunities and support climate resilience. Furthermore, promoting rural industrialisation, particularly agro-based industries, can create productive employment opportunities in the non-farm sector.
In conclusion, the study emphasises the need for a comprehensive approach to help rural households in Odisha adapt to climate change. By addressing the information, financial and infrastructure gaps, the government and multilateral agencies can assist rural households in building resilience to climate change and improving their overall well-being. The study suggests that a combination of awareness, financial support, livelihood diversification and infrastructure development can help rural households in Odisha adapt to climate change, improve their consumption patterns, increase their income and enhance their quality of life.
The book ‘Climate Change, Livelihood Diversification and Well-Being: The Case of Rural Odisha’ by Mitra et al. contributes to our understanding of livelihood diversification as a crucial aspect of rural resilience. It emphasises the need for targeted interventions that address the specific needs of climate-vulnerable communities in Odisha and similar regions. The book advocates for context-specific adaptation strategies and a coordinated approach to climate change adaptation and mitigation. By highlighting community challenges, the authors offer insights to inform the design and implementation of climate-resilient development programmes. Furthermore, the book emphasises the importance of integrating well-being into climate change adaptation strategies, considering social and environmental dimensions. It challenges approaches that prioritise agricultural productivity and food security. The authors argue for a nuanced understanding of the relationships between climate change, livelihoods and well-being, which has implications for developing effective adaptation and mitigation strategies in rural areas of developing countries. The book’s analysis and recommendations make it a valuable resource for advancing the discourse on sustainable development and climate change adaptation.