( ISSN 2277 - 9809 (online) ISSN 2348 - 9359 (Print) ) New DOI : 10.32804/IRJMSH

Impact Factor* - 6.2311


**Need Help in Content editing, Data Analysis.

Research Gateway

Adv For Editing Content

   No of Download : 77    Submit Your Rating     Cite This   Download        Certificate

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN MADURAI DISTRICT, SOUTH INDIA – A SOCIOLOGICAL STUDY ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE

    1 Author(s):  DR.SINGARAYAR BRITTO

Vol -  9, Issue- 1 ,         Page(s) : 411 - 426  (2018 ) DOI : https://doi.org/10.32804/IRJMSH

Abstract

The condition of the most of the farmers is horrible. Nearly 80 percent of the farmers in India belongs to Marginal(less than 1 ha) or small farmers (1–2 ha) category .The agriculture supports nearly 50 percent of the employment but contributes only 15 percent to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Everyday there is news coming on farmers suicides from different parts of the country, Madurai District in Tamil Nadu is no exception. The Indian farmer is a living idol of India, they are the most hardworking farmers around the world & always busy, working hard for their crops, during day and night. India is called the land of farmers, as most of the people of the country are directly or indirectly involved in the agriculture sector. It would not be wrong to say that ‘Indian farmers’ are the backbone of the economy and the farmers are indeed the beloved children of Mother India. Farming is the process of growing a wide variety of crops. The socio-economic conditions are remained unchanged over the past 80 years. This research paper articulates to find out the socio-economic conditions of the farmers and reason for joining the farmers club promoted by NABARD, Governmental other Non Governmental organistations to improve their living conditions by all this way, the researcher employed descriptive design collecting primary data to arrive conclusion. While analyzing the data the simple percentage analysis, cross tabulation and Likert 5 point scale had been applied. Nearly 81 per cent of farmers own less than 1 hectare where merely 19 per cent of farmers live on 2 and more than 2 hectares of the land.

Biggs, S.D. (1990) A multiple source model of innovation of agricultural research and technology promotion. World Development 18 (11), 1481–1499.
Campbell, B., Sayer, J.A., Frost, P., Vermeulen, S., Ruiz-Perez, M., Cunningham, A. and Ravi, P. (2001) Assessing the performance of natural resource systems. Conservation Ecology 5(2), 22. [online] http://www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art22/ index.html
CIFOR (Center for International Forestry Research) (1999)  Integrated  natural  resource management: the Bilderberg Consensus. Presented at a workshop on Integrated Natural Resources Management, 3–5 September 1999, Oosterbeek, The Netherlands.   http://www.inrm.cgiar.org/documents/bb_meeting.htm     (accessed 19 April 2003).
Clark, N. (1995) Interactive nature of knowledge systems: some implications for the third world. Science and Policy 22, 249–258.
Dimes, J., Muza, L., Malunga, G. and Snapp, S. (2004) Trade-offs between investments in nitrogen and weeding: On-farm  experimentation  and  simulation analysis in Malawi and Zimbabwe. In: Friesen, D.K. and Palmer
A.F.E. (eds) Integrated Approaches to Higher Maize Productivity in the New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Maize Conference, 5–11 February, 2002, Nairobi, Kenya. Centro Internacional de Mejormiento de Maíz y Trigo, Mexico, D.F. Mexico, and Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 452–456.
Dixit, A.K. and Pindyck, R.S. (1994) Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 476 pp.
Dosi, G., Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (2000) Introduction: the nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. In: Dosi, G., Nelson. R.R. and Winter,
S.G. (eds) The Nature and Dynamics of Organizational Capabilities, Oxford University Press, New York, 408 pp.
Douthwaite, B., Kuby, T., van de Fliert, E. and Schulz, S. (2003a) Impact pathway evaluation: an approach for achieving and attributing impact in complex systems. Agricultural Systems 78(2), 243–265.
Douthwaite, B., Baker, D., Weise, S. Gockowski, J., Manyong, V.M. and Keatinge,
J.D.H. (2003b). An impact assessment of IITA’s benchmark area approach. IITA Impact Series Publication. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), Ibadan, Nigeria.
Earl, S., Carden, F. and Smutylo, T. (2001) Outcome Mapping: Building Learning and Reflection into Development Programs. International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, Canada, 140 pp.
Ekboir, J. and Parellada, G. (2002) Public–private interactions and technology policy in zero-tillage innovation processes – Argentina. In: Byerlee, D. and Echeverría, R. (eds) Agricultural Research Policy in an Era of Privatization: Experiences from the Developing World. CABI, Wallingford, UK, 320 pp.
Ekboir, J. (2003) Why impact analysis should not be used for research evaluation and what the alternatives are. Agricultural Systems 78(2), 166–184.
Engel, P., Carlsson, C. and van Zee, A. (2003) Making evaluation results count: inter- nalizing evidence by learning. Policy Management Brief No. 16. European Centre for Development Policy Management, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Freeman, C. (1987) Technology and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan. Pinter, London, UK.
Fresco, L.O. and Kroonenberg, S.B. (1992) Time and spatial scales in ecological  sustainability. Land Use Policy 9(3), 155–168.
Foti, R., Rusike, J. and Dimes, J. (2002) Risk diversification opportunities through legumes in smallholder farming systems in the semiarid areas of Zimbabwe.   In: Waddington, S.R. (ed.) Grain Legumes and Green Manures for Soil Fertility in Southern Africa: Taking Stock of Progress. Proceedings of a Conference held 8–11 October 2002, Leopard Rock Hotel, Vumba, Zimbabwe. Soil Fert Net and Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo–Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Funnel, P. (2000) Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation  and  performance  monitoring.  In:  Rogers,  P.J., Petrsino, A., Hasci,
T.A. and Huebner, T. (eds) Program Theory in Evaluation. Challenges and Oppor- tunities. New Directions for Evaluation 87. John Wiley and Sons, Baltimore, Maryland.
Gardner, G. and Halweil, B. (2000) Overfed and underfed: the global epidemic of malnutrition. Worldwatch Paper 150. Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC.
Georghiou, L. 1996. The UK technology foresight programme. Futures  28(4), 359–377.
Guba, E.G. and Lincoln, Y.S. (1989) Fourth Generation Evaluation. Sage Publications, London, UK, 300 pp.

*Contents are provided by Authors of articles. Please contact us if you having any query.






Bank Details