Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Singh et al. (1995) in their study revealed that after implementation of project for five years (1988-89 to 1992-93). The project was evaluated in terms of conservation and development of resources and increased in productivity. The watershed management programme has not only increased the crops yield but also developed fodder resources in the area. The productivity of maize, paddy, jowar, blackgram and wheat have increased by about 2.15, 2.16, 1.79, 1.62 and 2.07 times, respectively. Over the base year (1988-89) yield of 5.0, 4.5, 5.0, 2.0 and 6.50 q per ha, respectively. Ram Mohan Rao (1996) while studying the impact of watershed development in Chinnatekur watershed of Karnool district in Andhra Pradesh on income and its distribution concluded that there was an increase of 2.32 to 4.72 per cent income in the post project period over that of pre-project period. The study also revealed that the increase in income was higher on small and medium farmers compared to marginal and large farmers, which they attributed to better resource utilization among farmer group. Hazra (1997) in his overview of crop yield performance in Tejpura watershed reported that, due to soil and water conservation works and water storage structures, the wells which earlier used to fetch water for about 1-2 hours, fetched water for more than 8-10 hours due to the increased ground water table by 10 to 23 feet after the construction of water storage structures. As a result of increased water availability and productivity, the monthly net income per family increased more than seven times from Rs. 240 to Rs. 1734. Singh and Singh (1997) examined the gains of the Rendhar watershed project in Jalaun district of Uttar Pradesh and found that there has been a phenomenal increase in the cropping intensity and crop productivity that because of an increase of gross cultivated area. Arunkumar (1998) in his case study on Kuthangere micro watershed in Karnataka found that the total income per household of the watershed farmers (Rs. 27411.25) was higher by Rs. 10183.46 compared to that of the non-watershed farmers (Rs. 17227.79) during 1996-97 and also total employment generated by the project activities was 27,941 mandays and annual incremental employment in crop production and maintenance of horticultural crops was 18,609 mandays in four years. Singh (1999) conducted study in the Chhajawa watershed and adjacent villages in Baran district of Rajasthan to assess the impact of watershed management effects on the farmer’s income. The average family income inside the watershed area was 2.15 per cent higher as compared to those outside of it. Bisrat (2000) in his study on economic analysis of watershed treatment through groundwater recharge of Basavapura micro-watershed in Kolar district of Karnataka revealed that average yield of bore well increased from 1150 gallons per hour (GPH) to 1426 GPH that is by 24 per cent due to construction of water harvesting structures. Bharathkumar (2001) in his case study of Perambalur district of Tamil Nadu reported that annual average incremental employment in crop production and maintenance of horticultural crops during four years was 15,263 mandays. Thus, the watershed project had resulted in an average additional employment of 37,550 mandays in four years. Naidu (2001) in his study Vnjuvankal watershed of Andhra Pradesh noticed that water harvesting structures and percolation ponds showed a rise in ground water level in the wells by 2 to 3 meters. It was also noted that there was an increase in the double-cropped area in the watershed. The farmers shifted towards commercial crops and agricultural productivity was higher. The net returns of farmers growing commercial and horticultural crop increased substantially and varies from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 8000 per hectare. Ramesh and Srinivasa Gowda (2001) reported that the small and large groups of farmers in Kabbalanala watershed area of Karnataka obtained comparatively higher productivity out of scarce resources than their counter parts in the non-watershed areas. They have also analysed and found that, in respect of small farmers, in watershed area, except human labour, all other resources contributed significantly towards ragi cultivation, whereas for non-watershed farmers, land and farm yard manure (FYM) resources had shown negative effect on ragi cultivation. Reddy et al. (2003) reported the environmental sustainability through watershed programme in semi-arid region of Andhra Pradesh that the red soil was developed on water shed basis and the conservation measures reduced run-off and increased the yields of major crops as groundnut by 15 per cent and further the run-off stored against conservation structures recharged the water levels in open wells by 0.5 to 1.5 m. The per capita income also increased from Rs. 1443 to 1917 in addition to the creation of employment opportunities to the tune of 29,938 mandays. Karegoudar et al. (2004) studied the impact of soil and water conservation measures in Kudligi watershed of Karnataka and indicated that there has been positive impact of soil and water
conservation measures on watershed basis including check dams, nala bunding, farm ponds etc., on resource conservation and productivity. 2.3 Feasibility of investment on various rwhs including farm ponds Agnihotri et al. (1986) estimated the economics of small storage dams at village Nada in Shivalik foot hills. The analysis showed that the B:C ratio is 1.23:1 at 10% discount rate and IRR 20% further opined that these values indicate water resources appears to good possibility and such projects also provide insurance against drought, floods and sedimentation of reservoirs and also reported that the availability of fodder and grasses have increased considerably due to protection of catchment area. Anonymous (1988) on an evaluation of soil conservation works of Nalabunds in the catchments of three River Valley Projects, viz. Matatila, Nizamsagar and Ukai, which was done by Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd., Bombay. And reported that the benefit cost ratio and the internal rate of return was 1.38:1 and 32 %, 1.3:1 and 48 % & 1.23:1 and 33% respectively in Matatila, Nizamsagar and Ukai catchments of three River Valley Projects of Nalabunds for 12 year life span. Selvarajan et al. (1984) reported that even with the 50 per cent decrease in crop benefits under farmers management, the investment on farm-ponds was found economically feasible as revealed by high Internal Rate of Returns (IRR) with highest Benefit-Cost ratio of 3.4 which was obtained when five cm of water was applied to crops as protective irrigation from the ponds. Palanisami (1991) reported that the investment in percolation ponds in Tamil Nadu state has been increasing over years. Financial evaluation of the ponds showed that ponds with moderate maintenance had a B:C ratio and IRR of 1.14 and 14.83 per cent while those with good maintenance had a B:C ratio and IRR of 1.89 and 20.42 per cent respectively. Sandhu et al. (1991) attempted to evaluate the development works done by the forestry, animal husbandry, and soil conservation and engineering components of the project. The economic analysis indicated that the rate of return was 15.2 percent for forestry, 13.1 percent for livestock and 12.6 percent for soil conservation and a benefit –cost ratio of more than unity at 12 percent discount rate. The overall rate of return was found to be 14.5 percent, which could be considerably stepped up by proper maintenance and increase in area under the various components of the watershed. Singh et al. (1991) evaluated two watershed development projects for Shivalik hills in Punjab. The Benefit cost ratio worked out was more than unity at 12 percent discount rate with an IRR of more than 15.5 percent for both the watersheds. This study also reported that the horticultural sector was the most beneficial with a B-C ratio of 4.65 and 5.01 at 15 percent discount rate for Maili and Chohal watersheds, respectively. Dhayani et al. (1993) concluded from their study that adoption of soil and water conservation technologies on farmers field on watershed basis in the outer Himalayan region was economical with B:C ratio of 1.93. Basavaraja (1999) evaluated the economic feasibility of vegetative and mechanical barriers used for soil moisture conservation in the medium black soils of the northern dry zone of Karnataka. The study showed that the net present value of the conservation measured was not only positive but also appealing, the IRR was more than 100 per cent and B:C ratio being more than two. Naik (2000) conducted study on economics of soil and water conservation structures in Kanakanala and Indawar-Hullalli watersheds in the Northern Dry Zone of Karnataka and analysed that the payback period was less in both vegetative bund (2.34) and contour bund (2.77), B:C ratio was found highest in farm ponds (3.59) followed by contour bunds (3.34). NPV was positive and highest in farm ponds (16,506) and IRR was more in case of vegetative bund (35%) contour bund (34%) and farm ponds (29.5%) and overall indicated that the adoption of soil and water conservation structure at farmer’s level were economically viable and financially feasible. Reddy et al. (2003) reported that the conservation of natural resources on watershed basis in semi arid region with B:C ratio 2.29 in Andhra Pradesh and proved to be economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Chandrappa (2004) studied economic evaluation of percolation tanks in Chitradurga district of Karnataka and summarized that the net present worth of investment on percolation tanks was Rs. 12.56 lakhs with 15 per cent discount rate. While the B:C ratio was 1.47. The pay back period with 15 per cent discount rate was 7.36 years and the internal rate of returns was 26 per cent.
Page 1 and 2: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RAIN WATER
Page 3 and 4: Chapter No. C O N T E N T S Title P
Page 5 and 6: Figure No. LIST OF FIGURES Title Be
Page 7 and 8: Appendi x No. LIST OF APPENDICES Ti
Page 9 and 10: agriculture. An improved crop produ
Page 11 and 12: Therefore, the results of the study
Page 13 and 14: Prasad (1994) opined that watershed
Page 15: vistas of productive and remunerati
Page 19 and 20: III. METHODOLOGY The design of the
Page 21 and 22: Table 3.1 Land utilization pattern
Page 23 and 24: district canals are the major sourc
Page 25 and 26: Fig. 2. Showing districts covered u
Page 27 and 28: 3.3 Sampling design For the present
Page 29 and 30: If the benefit cost ratio of the wa
Page 31 and 32: 3.6.15 Seed Farm produced seed has
Page 33 and 34: Plate 4. Nala bunding Plate 5. Rese
Page 35 and 36: Table 4.1. Age and education status
Page 37 and 38: Table 4.2. Family type and size of
Page 39 and 40: Table 4.4. Extent of use of RWHS in
Page 41 and 42: Table 4.5. Investment on RWHS throu
Page 43 and 44: 4.4.3 Productivity of major crops T
Page 45 and 46: Area (ha) Yield (q/ha) 160 140 120
Page 47 and 48: Table 4.10. Cost and returns profil
Page 49 and 50: Table 4.12. Cost and returns profil
Page 51 and 52: Table 4.14. Employment levels in di
Page 53 and 54: V. DISCUSSION The results of the st
Page 55 and 56: A critical observation of cost and
Page 57 and 58: VI. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Page 59 and 60: Farm-ponds were found to have posit
Page 61 and 62: HAZRA, C.R., 1997, Sustainable agri
Page 63 and 64: SHARMA, H.C. AND HOOJA, R., 1981, W
Page 65 and 66: IV. Important Crops, Area, Yield an
Page 67 and 68:
Sl No Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 Education G
Page 69 and 70:
Crop: __________ Variety: _________
Page 71 and 72:
VIII. Constraints for non-adoption
Page 73 and 74:
APPENDIX III Per ha cost of cultiva
Page 75 and 76:
APPENDIX V Per ha cost of cultivati
Page 77:
An economic analysis of rain water
show all

Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?