Participatory impact assessment of agricultural practices using the land use functions framework: case study from India

Figures & data

Table 1. Characteristics of districts studied

	Bijapur	Chitradurga	Chikballapur	Mysore	Udupi
Geographical area^a (ha)	1,053,471	770,702	404,501	676,382	356,446
Average size of operating land holding^a (2005–2006) (ha)	3.03	2.05	1.15	0.97	0.78
Net sown area^b (2008–2009) (%)	71	51	26	49	26
Net irrigated area^b (2008–2009) (%)	35	19	25	47	33
Fertilizers distributed^b (N + P + K, kg/acre of net sown area) (2009–2010)	92	72	221	229	69
Population density^c (2011) (per km^2)	207	197	298	437	304
Farmers' suicides^d (2003–2007)	408	1058	241	383	192
Notes: Chikballapur is a new district formed out from Kolar district in 2007; hence, these data are available only for Kolar.
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (2006 ^a, 2011 ^b); ^cCensus of India 2011; and ^dState Crime Records Bureau, Government of Karnataka.

Figure 1. Selected districts in the state of Karnataka, India, with information on the agroclimatic zones and HDI.

Table 2. LUF and indicator FoPIA

Sustainability criteria	LUF	Indicator
Ecological	Water	Soil moisture
	Biodiversity	Agrobiodiversity
	Ecosystem processes	Soil organisms
Economic	Land-based production	Crop yield
	Infrastructure	Access to markets
	Economic production	Net income
	Financial services	No overdue loans
Sociocultural	Provision of work	Work satisfaction
	Family health	Visits to the doctor
	Food security	Food from farm
	Social capital	Collective activities

Table 3. Scenarios for the PIA

Scenarios (farming with)	Practices
Organic inputs (S1)	• No use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides
	• Use of organic inputs
Mixed inputs (S2)	• Use of both organic and chemical inputs
Conventional inputs (S3)	• Use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
	• Little or no use of organic inputs

Figure 2. Mean weightage attributed to LUFs by participant groups.

Table 4. Mean weightage attributed to each LUF by participants in the study districts

Criteria	LUFs	Bijapur	Chitradurga	Chikballapur	Mysore	Udupi
Sociocultural	Provision of quality work	8.32	10.53	8.64	9.51	8.92
	Family health	11.10	10.91	10.05	10.56	9.39
	Food security	10.89	8.79	10.75	9.86	9.20
	Social capital	8.11	8.12	8.18	9.15	7.61
Economic	Land-based production	9.71	8.65	9.11	10.56	8.83
	Infrastructure	7.68	9.78	9.35	8.80	9.95
	Economic production	8.32	8.98	7.94	9.15	8.83
	Financial services	7.36	8.76	7.48	6.69	8.26
Environmental	Soil water content	9.82	8.94	9.58	9.86	9.95
	Biodiversity	8.32	7.57	8.88	8.45	9.48
	Ecosystem processes	10.35	8.97	10.05	7.39	9.58
Note: The four most important LUFs per district are highlighted in bold.

Figure 3. Organic input use scenario (S1) impact scores on indicators assigned by participant groups.

Figure 4. Mixed input use scenario (S2) impact scores on indicators assigned by participant groups.

Figure 5. Conventional input use scenario (S3) impact scores on indicators assigned by participant groups.

Directorate of Economics and Statistics . 2006 . Agricultural census , Bangalore , India : Government of Karnataka, Directorate of Economics and Statistics .

 Google Scholar

Directorate of Economics and Statistics . 2011 . Karnataka at a glance , 2009 – 10 . Bangalore , India : Government of Karnataka, Directorate of Economics and Statistics .

 Google Scholar