2015
DOI: 10.1080/07900627.2015.1060195
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Institutional arrangements for watershed development programmes in Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh, India: an explorative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Research and practical experiences demonstrate that strong local level institutions at the grass roots level are crucial for successful watershed management [21,22]. Watershed management requires coordination, comprehensive efforts, and a more direct involvement of local communities, government and non-governmental institutions, and other stakeholders.…”
Section: Conceptual Framework For Studying Functionality Analysis On mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research and practical experiences demonstrate that strong local level institutions at the grass roots level are crucial for successful watershed management [21,22]. Watershed management requires coordination, comprehensive efforts, and a more direct involvement of local communities, government and non-governmental institutions, and other stakeholders.…”
Section: Conceptual Framework For Studying Functionality Analysis On mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, though there were evidences of inequality of benefit distribution but the understanding of entitlements led the marginalised in the community to elect their own leader to politically bargain for their rights. In more recent times, an example from Madhya Pradesh shows that majority of the farmers’ perceive that the WC is working efficiently (Mondal et al, 2016). A rural livelihood programme functioning in the deprived part of western Odisha showcasing community-based institutions brings forth the fact that in spite of the recognised rigidity of the formal institutions, they were valued as the way to upscale these programmes (Reddy & Sahu, 2013).…”
Section: Experiences Of Participatory Institutions For Governance Of mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A rural livelihood programme functioning in the deprived part of western Odisha showcasing community-based institutions brings forth the fact that in spite of the recognised rigidity of the formal institutions, they were valued as the way to upscale these programmes (Reddy & Sahu, 2013). The downside of the institution-building process included low frequency of community meetings for decision-making, lack of links with market and banks, non-functioning UGs, and weak links between different institutions involved in the programmes across a number of states in the country (Mondal et al, 2016). In spite of some success reported from selected watersheds in the Bundelkhand region in Uttar Pradesh in terms of increased solidarity within the community as a result of the watershed programme, the level of participation remained relatively low and ineffective in the government-implemented projects (Sinha, 2015).…”
Section: Experiences Of Participatory Institutions For Governance Of mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The region covers 14 districts comprising Jhansi, Jalaun, Lalitpur, Hamirpur, Mahoba, Banda and Chitrakoot of Uttar Pradesh and, Newari, Datia, Tikamgarh, Chattarpur Damoh, Sagar and Panna district in Madhya Pradesh state. The region is complex, rainfed, risky, under invested, vulnerable, socioeconomical heterogeneous, ethically unique, agrarian and backward [9,10] . Among all the nine agro-climatic zones of Uttar Pradesh state, Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh has the lowest average annual household income [11] and lowest livelihood security [12] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%