Abstract

The sustainable livelihood framework is a widely used approach to analyze changes in rural livelihoods, especially in resource dependent communities. The framework emphasizes that given a certain situation where the livelihood context, resources and institutions remain favourable, livelihood strategies carried out by people could possibly lead to two different outcomes. One, the results of livelihood strategies will produce sustainable outcomes providing affected households respite from the impacts of livelihood loss. Two, there is a possibility that resulting outcomes may not be sufficient to reverse livelihood crisis and may not necessarily result in sustainable livelihood because of the complexities, uncertainties and multilevel drivers associated with it. This paper aims to evaluate both these possibilities through use of empirical data to clarify factors and conditions that may impede sustainable livelihood outcomes despite well planned strategies. It highlights that availability of more resources (or capitals) do not necessarily contribute to more robust livelihood strategies or outcomes. Using the case of small scale fishery-based livelihood system of Chilika Lagoon, Bay of Bengal in the East coast of India, this paper suggests that the relationship between livelihood shocks and stresses, capitals, institutions and livelihood strategies is circular and not linear.Extensive household and village level survey data are used to examine the processes of social-ecological change in Chilika from a livelihood perspective. It describes how through changes in context, resources and institutions, fishers in Chilika responded to the livelihood crisis, and how various strategies were used. It further examines the extent to which the outcomes of the strategies contributed to making fisher livelihoods sustainable. Conclusions drawn suggest that the outcomes of the livelihood crisis and responses from Chilika fishers have resulted in higher levels of their disconnection from the Lagoon and their marginalization. The multiplicity of ways through which fishers in Chilika perceive their livelihood suggest that livelihood in resource dependent communities, such as Chilika small-scale fisheries, is multidimensional and far more complex and dynamic than often perceived. Further innovations in approaches and tools will help better understand livelihood challenges and make related outcomes sustainable.

Highlights

  • The sustainable livelihood framework has remained a useful approach to analyze changes in rural livelihoods, especially in resource dependent communities

  • Nayak Maritime Studies (2017) 16:13 economic, ecological, historical settings and conditions, a combination of livelihood resources can contribute to the ability of resource users to follow a variety of livelihood strategies leads to certain outcomes

  • The sustainable livelihood framework and its many iterations are mainly based on five interacting factors: context, resources, institutions, strategies and outcomes (Ellis 2000a, b)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The sustainable livelihood framework has remained a useful approach to analyze changes in rural livelihoods, especially in resource dependent communities. Nayak Maritime Studies (2017) 16:13 economic, ecological, historical settings and conditions, a combination of livelihood resources (e.g., different types of ‘capitals’) can contribute to the ability of resource users to follow a variety of livelihood strategies (e.g., intensification, extensification, diversification and migration) leads to certain outcomes In this process, institutional processes which mediate the ability to carry out such strategies and achieve (or not) such outcomes (Scoones 1998). This paper aims to evaluate both these possibilities through use of empirical data to clarify factors and conditions that may impede sustainable livelihood outcomes despite well planned strategies It highlights that availability of more resources (or capitals) do not necessarily contribute to more robust livelihood strategies or outcomes. The paper highlights with field data that the relationship between livelihood shocks and stresses, capitals, institutions and livelihood strategies is circular and not linear

Objectives
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call