




































Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal 4 (1): 89–112, January 2021 

 
SPECIAL SECTION: The Commons: A Revisit  
 

Understanding How Local-level Environment 
Stewardship Initiatives Increase Livelihood Resilience 
to Climate Change: Insights from Rajasthan, India 
 

Tenzin Chorran,  Bhavana Rao Kuchimanchi,  Shreya Karmakar,  

Himani Sharma,  Debarupa Ghosh,  Pratiti Priyadarshini  
 
Abstract: Common property resources (CPR) are central for the sustenance of 
biodiversity and rural communities in India. Weak institutional governance and the 
lack of tenure rights for local communities over CPRs is resulting in degradation 
and over-exploitation of resources making rural communities vulnerable across 
India. Climatic variabilities further exacerbate existing socio-ecological imbalances 
multifold. Within the broader area of vulnerability and adaptation to climate 
change, this paper explores how restoration of CPRs through local environment 
stewardship initiatives contributes to the resilience of rural livelihoods in the face of 
climate change. A mixed-methods approach was employed to study this aspect in 
six villages in two districts in Rajasthan. It was found that secure property rights 
and collective management of CPRs enhances household resilience and improves 
ecological health. It concludes that processes supporting local self-governance need 
to be central to local adaptation to climate change, as they naturally create resilient 
and sustainable rural livelihoods. 

                                                           
 Foundation for Ecological Security (FES), PB No. 29, Anand 388001, Guajrat, India 
(Anand); tenzinchorran@gmail.com.  

 FES, Anand; bhavanarln@gmail.com.  

 Block EB, Plot 44, 1811b Rajdanga Main Road, East Kolkata Township, Kolkata 700 
107, India; shreya.karmakar1996@gmail.com. 

 FES, Anand; himani@fes.org.in. 

 FES, A-160, Near S Bhilwara, Rajasthan 311 001, India; debarupahghosh96@gmail.com. 

 FES, Anand; pratiti@fes.org.in. 

Copyright © Chorran, Kuchimanchi, Karmakar, Sharma, Ghosh and Priyadarshini 2021. 
Released under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence 
(CC BY-NC 4.0) by the author.  

Published by Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE), c/o Institute of Economic 
Growth, University Enclave, North Campus, Delhi 110007.  

ISSN: 2581-6152 (print); 2581-6101 (web).  

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.376  

https://doi.org/10.37773/ees.v4i1.376


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [90] 

Keywords: Common Property Resources; Local Governance; Vulnerability to 
Climate Change; Collective Management of Natural Resources; Secure Property 
Rights. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

India is particularly vulnerable to climate change, as around two-thirds of its 
population is rural and depend on climate-sensitive natural resources 
(Chatterjee et al. 2005). The increasing need to secure the livelihoods of 
these communities has therefore set the stage for climate change adaptation 
through social, institutional, physical, and structural alterations (Carabine 
and Lemma 2014; Hijioka et al. 2014). However, these adaptation strategies 
do not necessarily translate into reduced vulnerability of human systems, 
and, therefore, it is highly important to engage with people with different 
knowledge, experiences, and backgrounds to jointly address the challenges 
in framing adaptation approaches (Preston and Stafford-Smith 2009; 
Tompkins et al. 2010; Eakin et al. 2012).  

Rajasthan shows the highest climate sensitivity among all regions in India 
due to more severe and frequent spells of drought (Rathore and Verma 
2013). This adds another layer of vulnerability to existing rural 
developmental challenges, as 75% of the state’s population is dependent on 
climate-sensitive sectors for its livelihood. Further, the state has only 1.2% 
of India’s water and cultivable land resources, and over 20% of rural 
Rajasthan is landless (Rathore 2005). These conditions limit crop 
production, making livestock rearing and dependence on common property 
resources (CPRs) such as forests, pastures, waste lands, and natural water 
bodies, critical. 

Access to CPRs is an important determinant of economic well-being in 
rural communities across India (Jodha 1986; Jodha 1992; Beck and Ghosh 
2000; Beck and Nesmith 2001; Lesorogol 2008; Wolford et al. 2013; 
Thapliyal et al. 2019). CPRs are non-exclusive resources whose usage rights 
and obligations are shared by all members of the community (Ostrom et al. 
1988; Ostrom 1990; Bromley and Cernea 1989; Janssen and Anderies 2013). 
CPRs therefore constitute an important component of the rural landscape 
in India, especially in Rajasthan, where they have socio-cultural, economic, 
and ecological significance. The commons-livestock-agricultural complex 
provides stability and security to rural households in an unpredictable 
environment (Rao et al. 2015). Studies conducted at the village level estimate 
that CPRs contribute 12–23% to the incomes of rural households (Jodha 
1990).  



[91] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

In spite of the poverty-alleviating nature of CPRs (Jodha 1992; Reddy and 
Chakravarty 1999; Agarwal 2001, Ibisch et al. 2010), they continue to record 
declines in land quality and size (Jodha 1985; Mwangi and Wardell 2012). 
Although there is a risk of large-scale resource exploitation in case control 
of CPRs is transferred to communities, one must acknowledge that these 
communities used to have traditions of shared norms and mutual trust, and 
their behaviour in the experiments shows that communities still tend to be 
non-exploitative, non-commercial, and cooperative when prioritizing, 
planning, and managing resource sustainably (McGinnis and Ostrom 2014). 
While literature on rural communities and climate change adaptation exists 
in the Indian context, studies on rural communities, CPRs, and adaptation 
to climate change are limited (Bantilan et al. 2012; Aryal et al. 2020).  

In view of this, in our paper, we study how the restoration of CPRs through 
environment stewardship initiatives at the local level can contribute to 
climate-resilient rural livelihoods. We studied six villages in Udaipur and 
Bhilwara districts, Rajasthan. We applied Ostrom’s socio-ecological systems 
(SES) framework (Ostrom 2009) to understand how the complex social and 
ecological components of a system interact against the backdrop of a 
changing climate and resource usage. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

2.1 Study area and sample 

We conducted this study in the state of Rajasthan, which is located in the 
north-western region of India (Figure 1). The Foundation for Ecological 
Security (FES) has been working in seven districts in Rajasthan since 1988, 
covering a total of 5,590 habitations, undertaking work towards 
conservation of natural resources, particularly CPRs, through the collective 
action of local communities. Hence, for this paper, we deliberately chose six 
villages across two districts—Udaipur and Bhilwara—based on the 
following criteria: i) over ten years of conservation work and ii) the 
availability of two-point data on ecological and socio-economic indicators 
over a period of five years. We present the characteristics of the villages in 
Table 1. 

 

 

 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [92] 

Figure 1: Location of the study [A) India map showing the state of Rajasthan; B) 
location of the study districts in Rajasthan state; C) location of the study talukas 
within each district] 

 

 
Source: Adapted from Administrative Atlas of India, Census of India, 2011, and 
local government directory, 2015–16. 
 
 



[93] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

Table 1: The characteristics of the districts and chosen villages 

Udaipur district: agro-ecological region: Northern Plains (and Central 
Highlands), including the Aravallis, hot semi-arid eco-region; average rainfall: 
624.9 mm; temperature range: 0o–48o; soil type: red gravelly soil and red sandy 
soil. 

Village name Demographic profile Types of CPR 
and area 

Sultanji ka 
Kherwara, 
Jhadol 
Block* 

o Population: 150 HHs. 
o Caste composition: OBC (75%); ST (24%): 

FC (1%). 
o Farmer composition: landless (7%); marginal 

(55%); small (37%); medium (1%). 
o Livestock profile: cattle(17%); buffalo (2%); 

sheep (1%); goat (80%). 
o Livelihood profile: agriculture and livestock 

rearing (75%); wage employment (20%); off–
farm employment (5%) 

Forest land: 
140 ha. 

Cheetarawas, 

Sayara Block 

o Population: 150 HHs. 
o Caste composition: ST (100%). 
o Farmer composition: marginal (98%); small 

(2%). 
o Livestock profile: cattle (32%); buffalo (2%); 

sheep (2%); goat (64%). 
o Livelihood profile: agriculture and livestock 

rearing (100%), 

Forest land: 
190 ha. 

Dheemri, 

Phalasiya 
Block 

o Population: 185 HHs. 
o Caste composition: ST (100%). 
o Farmer composition: marginal (3%); small 

(97%). 
o Livestock profile: cattle (53%); sheep (1%); 

goat (46%). 
o Livelihood profile: agriculture and livestock 

rearing (75%); wage employment (10%); off–
farm employment (15%). 

Forest land: 
88 ha. 

contd... 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [94] 

 

Bhilwara district: agro-ecological region: Northern Plains (and Central Highlands), 
including the Aravallis, hot semi-arid eco-region; average rainfall: 597.2 mm; 
temperature range: 7.3o–46o; soil type: shallow black soil, mixed red and black soils 

Village name Demographic profile Types of CPR 
and area 

Mala ka 
Kheda, 
Mandalgarh 
Block 

o Population: 40 HHs.  
o Caste composition: OBC (90.8%); ST (9.2%). 
o Farmer composition: landless (0%); marginal 

(50%); small (25%); medium (25%). 
o Livestock profile: cattle (14%); buffalo (14%); 

sheep (29%); goat (43%). 
o Livelihood profile: agriculture and livestock 

rearing (86%); wage employment (9%); off–
farm employment (6%). 

Two managed 
grazing land: 
30 ha and 15 
ha. 

Mukan Garh , 
Mandalgarh 
Block 

o Population: 230 HHs. 
o Caste composition: SC (57 %); OBC (37%); 

FC (6%). 
o Farmer composition: landless (1%); marginal 

(52%); small (26%); medium (17%). 
o Livestock profile: cattle (21%); buffalo (19%); 

sheep (9%); goat (60%). 
o Livelihood profile: agriculture and livestock 

rearing (85%); wage employment (14%); off–
farm employment (1%). 

Forest land: 
50 ha. 
Managed 
grazing land: 
30 ha. 
Unmanaged 
revenue waste 
land: 18 ha.  

Kekariya , 
Mandalgarh 
Block 

o Population: 110 HHs. 
o Caste composition: OBC (85%); ST (5 %); SC 

(5%); FC (5%). 
o Farmer composition: landless (4%); marginal 

(89%); small (5%); medium (2%). 
o Livestock profile: cattle (35%); buffalo (25%); 

sheep (6%); goat (33%). 
o Livelihood profile: agriculture and livestock 

rearing (82%); wage employment (12%); off–
farm employment (6%). 

Forest land: 
100 ha.  
Managed 
revenue 
wasteland: 30 
ha.  
Unmanaged 
revenue waste 
land: 150 ha. 

Sources of Data: IMD (2019); FES Data Platform (2019); FES internal database 
2013–2019; Hydrogeological Atlas of Rajasthan 2013 (GoR 2013); Agriculture 
Contingency Plans for Bhilwara and Udaipur districts (GoI 2012a, 2012b).  

Notes: 1. Major crops, i.e. maize, pulses, sorghum, barley, wheat, and mustard, are 
the same for all sites. 

2. * Block is the lowest administrative division in India. 

3. List of acronyms: OBC – Other Backward Castes; ST – Scheduled Tribes; SC – 
Scheduled Castes; FC – Forward Castes or General category; HHs – Households. 

 

 



[95] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

2.2. Data collection process 

FES uses a range of scientific survey formats to monitor ecological, social, 
and economic changes in its project areas over time. From among these, we 
selected three data sources for the time period 2013–2019 to build a 
comprehensive narrative on various aspects of the study. The data sources 
we used include:  

i) Socio-ecological monitoring: FES uses International Forestry Resources 
and Institutions (IFRI) survey instruments to obtain socio-ecological data at 
the village level. IFRI facilitates multi-country, multi-year data collection 
and analyses data about forests, people, and institutions using a 
combination of research methods (IFRI 2013).  

ii) Annual ecological monitoring: FES uses a comprehensive ecological 
monitoring approach to assess changes in the ecological condition of CPRs 
under community protection. It conducts regular annual ecological 
assessments through geographic information system (GIS) and community 
participatory methods on several parameters to track changes in 
community-managed CPRs and unmanaged CPRs. However, we restrict 
our study to biomass, vegetation density, and biodiversity aspects.  

iii) Secondary data and independent studies on climate change adaptation: 
To link various climate change adaptation perspectives, we gathered data 
from two studies we had conducted in Rajasthan, covering aspects of the 
communities’ perception of climate risks, the impacts they faced, and their 
adaptation responses. 

2.3 Theory  

Our study’s aim stems from Ostrom’s Social-Ecological Systems (SES) 
framework (Ostrom 2007; 2009), which suggests that socio-ecological 
outcomes are a function of the complex interactions among the diverse 
social and ecological components of that system. Building on the same 
stream of thought, in this paper, we apply a modified version of Ostrom’s 
SES framework to analyse our findings (see Figure 2) on how local 
stewardship initiatives help systems adapt to extreme climatic events. To 
summarize, Ostrom’s framework consists of four major subsystems—
resource systems, resource units, governance systems, and actors. The 
interplay between these separate subsystems is mediated by complex 
interactions that produce outcomes that again feed back into the system to 
improve its functioning, robustness, and resilience. The focal SES interacts 
with social, economic, and political systems—and related ecosystems—
considering them external variables that affect the system’s vulnerability and 
adaptability in the long term. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [96] 

Figure 2: Application of adapted version of Ostrom’s SES framework 

 

Source: Adapated from Ostrom (2007; 2009)   



[97] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

We therefore considered the six study villages to be six different SESs. We 
studied the socioeconomic and political context of each SES using the 
variables of livelihood and economic development, demographic trends, 
and market linkages, which gave insights into the socioeconomic status of 
households (HHs), their cultural background, and societal evolution. To 
understand the related ecosystems, we integrated climate variabilities and 
the impacts faced by communities living in the SES, as climatic variations 
have an effect on both, the social and ecological components of a system. 
The resource systems within each SES were the CPRs used by the 
communities, i.e., forests in the case of Udaipur district and grazing lands, 
revenue waste lands, and forests in the case of Bhilwara district. Here, we 
studied both biophysical aspects, i.e., location, size, productivity, and 
storage characteristics, along with social aspects, such as human-
constructed facilities, as factors that determine the access rights and 
dependency patterns of HHs on the CPRs in the SES. For resource units, 
we mapped the types of products and changes in dependency patterns over 
time. We also mapped the characteristics of the products (mostly 
vegetation) in each location, by paying attention to their growth, as it affects 
the region’s micro-climate. Under governance systems and actors, we 
looked at local relevant actors, community leadership, knowledge systems, 
and dependency on the resource, as they influence local stewardship 
initiatives that work to conserve CPRs. In governance systems, we also look 
at administrative systems, local rules and systems, and the role of associated 
stakeholders. To understand interactions, we looked at patterns of resource 
use and dependency on CPRs; forest–livelihood interactions; community 
perceptions about the condition of resource systems; use of technology; 
deliberation processes; conflict points; self-organizing activities; and 
networking activities, as they are important indicators of local stewardship. 
And lastly, for outcomes, we analysed social, ecological, and climate 
adaptation performance measures, based on which we elaborated how 
crucial actors and governance systems are maintaining the SES’s 
equilibrium to absorb and respond to shocks. 

 

3. RESULTS 

3.1 The socio-cultural and economic setting in the study sites  

In Udaipur district, the three study sites we focused on were Cheetarawas, 
located in Sayara block, Dheemri located in Phalasiya block and Sultanji ka 
Kherwara, located in Jhadol block. Cheetarawas and Dheemri are 
predominately tribal habitations, while Sultanji ka Kherwara has a 
predominantly OBC population. The main sources of livelihood for 
households (HHs) in these sites are agriculture, livestock rearing, sale of 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [98] 

forest produce, and wage labour. They also see a high rate of rural–urban 
migration, mostly for off-farm employment. As Udaipur district falls in the 
southern Aravalli hill region, which is predominantly forested, the forests 
hold great social and cultural significance for the inhabitants. All three study 
sites are located around 50–70 km away from Udaipur city, while the 
nearest town markets are around 10 km away. Though remotely located, 
Udaipur city stills plays a significant role in accessibility to larger markets 
and other urban services.  

In Bhilwara, the study sites, Mala ka Kheda, Mukan Garh, and Kekariya, are 
all located in Mandalgarh block. Here also, agriculture and livestock rearing 
are the main livelihood sources for HHs. These sites have access to various 
marketplaces within their gram panchayats (8–12 km), Mandalgarh town 
(20–35 km), and Bhilwara city (40–65 km). Good road connectivity 
provides ample opportunity for HHs in the region for marketing dairy 
products and employment in the large–scale textile industries in Bhilwara. 
In addition to this, high mineral availability, such as limestone deposits, is 
also attracting attention from the cement mining and marble industries. 
Due to these factors, the status of migration is quite low in the study sites in 
Bhilwara as compared to Udaipur.  

3.2 CPRs: use and vulnerability to climate change  

In Udaipur, the reserve forest area was the main CPR. Cheetarawas, 
Dheemri, and Sultanji ka Kherwara have access to about 190 ha, 88 ha, and 
140 ha of reserve forest lands respectively; these fall under the forest 
department’s jurisdiction, but a village forest protection and management 
committee (VFPMC), constituted under the Joint Forest Management 
arrangement, manages them. These forest areas are shared by other 
habitations, making them a highly contested resource. The forest tract in 
Cheetarawas, located on the fringes of Kumbhalgarh wildlife sanctuary, is 
dense and mature, with abundant wild flora and fauna. Meanwhile, the 
forests of Dheemri and Sultan ji ka Kherwara have more shrub-like 
vegetation. In all three sites, the forests hold important cultural and social 
significance and act as an important source of several forest products, 
fodder, fuel wood, and water for the inhabitants. All three sites have a 
history of massive deforestation by various actors and are further impacted 
by frequent droughts and reduced rainfall over the years. However, local 
environment stewardship initiatives (which we discuss further in Section 
3.3) have helped restore these forest resources, considerably stabilizing the 
livelihoods of tribal and other poor HHs in the region. The inhabitants of 
the region harvest and sell a range of forest produce, namely custard apple 
(Annona squamosa), tendu leaves (Diospyros melanoxylon), java plum (Syzygium 
cumini), Indian jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana), date (Phoenix dactylifera), goose 



[99] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

berry (Phyllanthus emblica), khair (Acacia catechu), baheda or myrobalan 
(Terminalia bellirica), Dyer’s oleander (Wrightia tinctoria), ratanjot (Jatropha 
curcas), umbiya (Miliusa tomentosa), flame of the forest (Butea monosperma), 
bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus), and a variety of fodder grasses.  

In the Bhilwara study sites, there were three different types of CPRs: the 
reserve forest managed by the village forest protection management 
committee (VFPMC); grazing land managed by the village pastureland 
development committee (VPDC); and unmanaged revenue waste land 
under the jurisdiction of the revenue department. All the HHs in the study 
sites are dependent on all the CPRs; however, the availability of products 
from each CPR varies considerably, influencing their dependency patterns. 
Forest lands, spanning across 50–100 ha, were once a good source of fuel 
wood and fodder for the community, but due to strict governance and 
restrictions, imposed by the Forest Department, the communities are 
unable to access these lands and have a higher dependence on other types 
CPRs for fuel wood and fodder. Revenue waste lands, which are mostly 
unmanaged, have been neglected, and are used indiscriminately for fuel 
wood, fodder, forest produce, and timber. Continuous degradation over the 
years has depleted these resources, reducing their availability considerably. 
The village pasture lands and revenue waste lands span across 30 ha, 35 ha, 
and 40 ha in the villages of Mukan Garh, Mala Ka Khera, and Kekariya, 
respectively. Over the past five years, the dependence of communities on 
managed grazing lands has increased, especially for fodder consumption; 
their dependence on CPRs for timber has reduced but has remained the 
same for fuel wood and intangible benefits.  

Our interaction with HHs at both sites revealed that their dependency on 
the sale of forest produce has increased over time. In the Udaipur sites, we 
found increased dependency on certain forest produce, such as custard 
apple, bamboo, baheda, and palash, due to a higher market value, particularly 
in Cheetrawas. Although in recent years migration has increased in the 
region, the forests continue to be a good source of income for a certain 
section of HHs. In Bhilwara, the greatest dependency across all the study 
sites was on managed grazing lands compared to other CPRs. This can be 
attributed to the higher availability of fodder due to better management 
practices. From the forests, tendu leaves, amla (goose berry), ber (jujube), 
and certain species of fodder have become economically significant for the 
socioeconomically weaker HHs, as they help meet their subsistence needs. 
Dependence on CPRs for fodder in both the Udaipur and Bhilwara sites 
have increased manifold between 2013 and 2019, while dependence on 
CPRs for timber and fuel wood species have somewhat reduced in the 
Bhilwara study villages, specifically with the introduction of several 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [100] 

government schemes that propose cleaner and greener alternatives to 
timber for house construction and fuel wood for cooking.  

In this context, already marked by several issues, changes in rainfall and 
temperature and the occurrence of extreme events not only have an 
ecological impact on the CPRs—they also influence how communities may 
use or manage resources, exacerbating already existing vulnerabilities. 
Independent studies on climate change adaptation in both sites indicated 
that communities identified a range of climate risks in the region (see Table 
2). In the Udaipur sites, the major climate risks they perceived were erratic 
rainfall patterns, dry spells, and cyclonic storms. In Bhilwara, HHs reported 
erratic rainfall patterns, high-intensity rainfall, and a rise in temperature. 
Based on participant perceptions, the sites in Udaipur were more affected 
by changes in climate phenomena than the sites in Bhilwara. However, in 
both sites, HHs reported that climate risks have intensified over the last five 
years. 

Table 2: Climate risk perceptions of communities in the study sites 

Climate risks identified Impacts perceived 

 Udaipur Bhilwara 

Reduced overall precipitation  M L 

Dry spells  H M 

Erratic rainfall patterns  H H 

High-intensity rainfall  L H 

Rising temperature  M H 

Rising winters temperatures  L L 

Increase in drought situations  M L 

Delayed onset of the monsoons L L 

Cyclonic storms in monsoons  H L 

Note: Acronyms: Scale: H = high impact, M = medium impact, L = low impact  

In terms of impacts (see Table 3), in the Udaipur sites, the major impacts 
reported by the HHs seemed to have a direct bearing on their natural 
resources, as cyclonic storms uprooted trees, destroyed forest conditions, 
and increased the incidence of forest fires. This impacted the availability of 
forest produce, fuel wood, and fodder. With regard to livestock, they 
reported an increase in disease incidence and a reduction in crop residues 
due to crop loss. Regarding agriculture-related impacts, they reported crop 
loss in the germination and harvest stages, an increase in pest attacks and 
diseases in crops, and a reduction in crop yields.  

The impacts of climate risks on agriculture and livestock were similar across 
all sites in Bhilwara. However, high-intensity rainfall caused the breakage of 
watershed structures, leading to flash floods and waterlogging. HHs also 



[101] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

reported that reductions in fodder and fuel wood were more predominant 
in the unmanaged CPRs. Further, HHs in both the districts felt that 
increasing temperatures during the summer months caused heat stress, 
which prevented HH members from working outdoors for longer hours. 
Workers, especially women, lacked the physical strength required to work in 
government wage programmes or agricultural fields in the heat, depriving 
them of their daily wage and livelihood.  

 

3.3 Local environment stewardship and common property resources 
conservation  

In all the study sites, separate committees were present to govern the 
different CPRs. In case of forest lands, VFPMCs were organized under the 
Joint Forest Management arrangement; VPDC was formed for managed 
pasture lands as per the rules of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act; and Tree 
Grower’s Cooperative Society was constituted for managing revenue waste 
lands. The committees in all study sites consisted of locally relevant actors, 
such as community resource persons, village representatives, or members of 
the executive body of the village institution. They had specific bye-laws that 
defined the rules for accessing, using, withdrawing, and managing the CPRs. 
These committees also developed annual regeneration plans, taking into 
consideration the diverse needs of different social groups in the village, 
including women, which encouraged the participation of multiple 
stakeholders in the conservation and management of CPRs.  

However, there were cases of both strong and weak institutional 
governance in the study sites as the evolution of institutions is non-linear in 
nature (see Table 3).For example, the VFPMC in Cheetarawas was very 
strong and had been managing the forest land for about fifteen years. 
However in the last five years conflicts among the communities have 
become frequent, and the rules are poorly enforced due to internal and 
external factors. This has impacted the conservation and management 
efforts. While efforts are being made by the institution to reduce conflicts, 
encroachments still exist and the regeneration rate of forest resources is also 
comparatively low. Contrary to this, the forests of Dheemri and Sultanji ka 
Kherwara reflected the positive results of consistent CPR co-management 
practices by communities, resulting in improved vegetation density and 
green cover. The forest in Dheemri was deteriorating with the rampant 
felling of trees in the 1960s and 70s. The community soon realized the 
importance of a healthy ecosystem and decided to protect their forests. In 
an effort to prevent people from cutting trees, a few of the community 
members went to a nearby  temple  called  Kesariya  Jiand  performed  the  



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [102] 

Table 3: Household responses to climate change adaptation  

Climate change impacts Adaptation responses by communities U B 

CPR related  

Decrease in availability of 
certain tree and fodder species  
Damage to trees through 
uprooting/ breakage 

Increased collective action in CPR 
management 
Increased plantation activity in forests  
Implementation of harvesting rules  

P 
 
P 
P 

P 
 
P 
P 

Reduced surface water bodies  SMC work in private lands  
SMC work in CPRs 

P 
P 

P 
P 

Breakage of watershed 
structures causing flash 
flooding  

Repair of structures  
Increased SMC works in CPRs and 
other areas 

A 
A 

P 
P 

Reduced fodder in 
grazing/revenue waste lands  

Rules and regulations to protect and 
regenerate lands  

A P 

Livestock related 

Increased disease incidence in 
livestock 

Shift in species composition or breeds 
Increased veterinary care  

P 
P 

P 
P 

Sudden disease outbreaks in 
poultry 

Reduced poultry rearing 
Shift in species composition 

A 
P 

P 
A 

Reduction in crop residues 
due to crop loss 

Agroforestry 
Shift to livestock or mixed farming 
Conservation of common lands 

P 
P 
P 

A 
P 
P 

Agriculture related  

Crop loss in the germination 
and harvest stages  

Double sowing  
Crop diversification 
Increased dependency on forest 
products  

P 
P 
P 

P 
P 
P 

Increase in pest and disease 
attacks in crops  

Increased usage of chemical pesticides  
Look at weather forecasts  

P 
A 

P 
A 

Reduction in crop yields  New crop alternatives  
Increased dependency on forest 
products  
Higher dependence on wage work  
Increased dependence on PDS 
Increase livestock production  

P 
P 
P 
P 
P 

P 
A 
P 
P 
P 

Reduced groundwater  Use of water-efficient systems  
Water budgeting initiatives at the 
village level  
Well deepening  

P 
P 
 
P 

P 
P 
 
P 

Sources: Independent studies on climate change adaptation by FES, 2015–16.  

Note: Acronyms: P – present; A – absent; CPR – common property resources; 
SCM – soil and moisture conservation; U – Udaipur; B – Bhilwara. 

sacred ritual of kesarchidkaav (throwing saffron along the forest boundary). 
Since then, there has been no felling of trees, and the community believes 



[103] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

that if anyone causes harm to the forest, they will be punished by God. 
Today, the forest is divided into various management units, wherein each 
habitation has user rights over a separate forest patch. The management 
units, demarcated by streams, are in proportion to the population of each 
habitation, such that the benefits are equitably shared. Similarly, in 
Kekariya, a patch of revenue waste land was leased to the community by the 
revenue department. With proper management and strong governance 
practices, the degraded land was finally revived and converted into grazing 
land. Today, it provides myriad benefits to the community. 

In Kekariya and Mukan Garh, the rules governing the management of 
grazing lands allow villagers to collect only dry twigs that fall from trees for 
use as firewood. The grazing land is closed for four to five months during 
the monsoons to allow grass and new regenerating plants to grow. The 
cutting of branches and grazing of animals is strictly prohibited during this 
period. In Mala Ka Khera, the committee closes access to grazing lands for 
two years after plantation activity. In case the rule is broken, the village 
institution imposes graduated sanctions. Across all the villages, the penalty 
for breaking rules depends on the extent of damage done and also on the 
economic background of the offender. The fine is usually fixed at INR 
2,000 for vulnerable people (socially excluded, landless, marginal, small 
landholding farmers), while it may shoot to as high as INR 15,000 for 
offenders from comparatively privileged backgrounds. After the payment of 
the fine, the lower and poorer castes are allowed to take the branches that 
they have chopped off the trees.  

3.4 CPRs and adaptation to climate change 

In this section, we elaborate on the interactions between HHs and CPRs, 
examining outcomes in terms of social and ecological returns and how they 
have helped these communities adapt to climate change (see Table 3). We 
found that the results of the local stewardship initiatives for CPR 
conservation differed significantly in the two study sites, depending on 
differential governance systems, resource conditions, and other local 
factors. In Cheetarawas, in spite of the high incidence of conflicts and low 
regeneration rate of forest products, there has been a significant 
improvement in the availability of forest resources, since the VFPMC was 
formed, thus providing benefits to communities, particularly buffering them 
from losses in agriculture and livestock production. The increased sale of 
certain forest produce in the past five years provided poorer HHs an 
average annual income of INR 5,000–40,000 per household, depending on 
the kind of forest produce they sold and its availability. One such example 
is the collective marketing of custard apple, which earned people in 
Cheetarawas INR 3,75,000 in 2019, benefitting several HHs. 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [104] 

In Bhilwara, all study sites showed increased vegetation density in the 
managed grazing lands, thus leading to an increase in the availability of 
fodder and water resources. This resulted in increased livestock holding 
capacity per HH, and large farmers in particular showed a greater 
preference for rearing buffaloes. Therefore, there is a strong presence of 
dairy cooperatives, either within the village or in the nearby gram panchayat. 
The average quantity of dairy sales per HH in these villages was around 
200–350 litres per month, which generated an average household income of 
INR 1,25,00–2,00,000 annually. Also, they generate various dairy products, 
including curd, ghee, paneer, and butter, for self-consumption. The 
availability of more fodder in the managed CPRs helped the HHs continue 
dairy production, thereby helping them cope with crop loss and the reduced 
availability of crop residues and manage disease incidence in dairy animals 
better.  

Other responses that we observed in both sites with regard to CPRs and 
efforts by the local community to reduce the impacts of climate risks in the 
region involved increased plantation, soil and moisture conservation 
activities, further tightening of the management, and new harvesting rules 
to enhance regeneration efforts. In Bhilwara, as high-intensity rainfall was 
an issue, the management undertook the repair of damaged watershed 
structures and the construction of new ones. This not only helped reduce 
general water scarcity and flash flooding, but it also helped in further 
regeneration of vegetation in the grazing lands. 

Further, this increase in community-led collective action to manage CPRs 
helped in checking water run-off and in improving the soil and moisture 
regime in the region. For instance, in Mukan Garh, the construction of 
water harvesting structures has contributed to groundwater recharge and an 
increase in the water column in wells by about 15–20 feet. This has had a 
cascading effect on agriculture and livestock-based livelihoods, as is 
reflected in the increased productivity of wheat and maize over the past few 
years. 

 The use of water-efficient systems and water-budgeting initiatives in both 
the districts further helped offset losses in crop production. As their 
incomes became stable, HHs managed other losses in agriculture by 
increasing their use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, diversifying their 
crop (i.e., a shift from maize to wheat, and from chilli to mustard), double 
sowing, and selling forest produce.  

When it came to livestock, regeneration of CPRs helped in securing dairy-
based livelihoods, particularly in Bhilwara, despite drought-like conditions 
and erratic rainfall patterns that caused losses in crops, both in terms of 



[105] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

income and crop residues. Further, though the communities reported high 
disease incidence in livestock, the availability of abundant fodder helped 
keep the incidence low and manageable through better nutrition. Bhilwara 
also saw an increase in livestock keeping. 

From the ecological perspective (see Table 4), in the Udaipur sites, our data 
revealed that there was a 35.8% increase in the above ground biomass in 
Dheemri and Sultanji ka Kherwara, whereas there was a 14.6% decrease in 
Cheetrawas. We saw a similar trend in the species diversity index and 
number of species. In the former, the community’s efforts to protect CPRs 
were visible both ecologically and in its subsequent returns towards 
enhancing livelihoods, while weak local management and governance led to 
lower regeneration in Cheetrawas.  

Table 4: Ecological outcomes of local stewardship initiatives in the study sites  

Particulars Udaipur Bhilwara 

Type of resource 
systems 

Forest 
land* 

Forest 
land** 

Grazing 
land 

Forest 
land 

RWL 

Study year ’14 ’19 ’14 ’19 ’14 ’19 ’14 ’19 ’14 ’19 

Number of 
species 

25 22 21 32 12 12 11.5 15 10 9 

Shannon 
Diversity Index 

2.6 2.4 2.4 2.7 1.7 1.2 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 

Above ground 
tree biomass 
(tons/ha) 

140.9 120.2 24.8 33.7 10.2 11.8 21.8 30.7 4.2 5.2 

No. of trees 
(0–5 cm DBH 
class) 

212 333 629 784 391 546 741 1063 173 184 

No. of Trees 
(> 10 cm DBH 
class) 

454 451 49 82 42 49 62 151 24 30 

Sources: IFRI dataset 2013 and 2019.  

Note: Acronyms: DBH – diameter at breast height; * Cheetrawas, ** Dheemri and 
Sultanji ka Kherwara 

In Bhilwara, however, we saw an improvement in natural resources in all 
CPRs in 2013–2019. We found a 21–54% increase in standing biomass in 
both forests and community-managed grazing lands in all three sites. There 
was also an increase in tree density, but a decrease in the diversity index, 
which revealed an increase in only dominant species. The waste lands, 
however, showed different results—there was an increase in standing 
biomass, but it mainly consisted of the invasive species, Prosopis juliflora; 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [106] 

there was otherwise a reduction in species diversity, density, and fodder 
availability. 

 

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 

The communities in the study sites in both districts are located in varied 
geographical regions and landscapes. Though agriculture and livestock 
production are their primary occupations, we found that they showed a 
high dependence on CPRs to maintain their basic needs, as a supplementary 
source of income (particularly poorer HHs), and for profitable livestock 
rearing.  

Our findings showed that goods and services obtained from CPRs, such as 
fuel wood, fodder, and forest produce met both, the income and daily 
subsistence needs of the poor and marginalized. Thus, by undertaking 
various restoration activities on CPRs, which were once stressed and 
degraded, they improved groundwater levels, biomass production, and 
biodiversity, which led to overall stabilization in farm-based livelihoods. 
This was more evident in Bhilwara compared to Udaipur. Further, 
productive CPRs and their regeneration efforts supported livestock rearing 
by smallholders (Ali 2007) in Bhilwara, which helped buffer against crop 
losses and helped them continue dairy production even under drought-like 
conditions. In addition to this, we can consider the shift to buffalo rearing 
in the region as a sustainable and lucrative adaptation to climate change. 
This is because buffaloes can be reared on fodder from CPRs and do not 
require high-quality green feed like crossbred/exotic cows, whose fodder is 
otherwise produced with precious ground water. 

While CPRs, when managed properly, can transform and improve rural 
livelihoods, extreme climatic events, coupled with mismanagement practices 
and lack of collective effort at the community level, can have negative 
impacts on them, thus affecting food security and increasing poverty and 
social inequality—as we have seen in Cheetrawas, even though it is a 
densely forested area. Further, we also observed that the condition of the 
CPRs (see Table 4) also influenced the rate of migration—less productive 
CPRs in the Udaipur sites can be linked to higher migration (despite their 
remoteness) than Bhilwara. In such a situation, climate risks in the region 
add an additional layer of risks, increasing the existing vulnerability of 
socio-economically weaker sections, as they are most dependent on CPRs 
(Bantilan et al. 2012). We thus conclude that CPRs act both as a stable 
source of livelihood as well as a safety net against risks arising from climate 
change.  



[107] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

In order to ensure that the benefits from CPRs are sustainable in the long 
term, it is important to govern and manage them judiciously. We find that 
when local communities have secure property rights over CPRs and manage 
them collectively through self-governing local institutions, the result is 
enhanced household resilience through the reduction of poverty and social 
inequalities as well as improved ecological health (Dupar and Badenoch 
2002). We conclude that processes that support local self-governance need 
to be strengthened and are central to local adaptation to climate change —
as we have seen in many instances where CPRs have buffered the impacts 
of climate change. In other words, our paper emphasizes the need for 
integrating climate vulnerability and related adaptation strategies at the local 
level by means of collective action to boost local institutions to improve 
their planning and implementation of developmental activities (Agarwal 
2008). 

For centuries, CPRs, except forests, have been considered to be of no 
economic value, while the traditional use of these lands has supported the 
livelihoods of economically and socially backward rural communities for 
decades (Jodha 2000). Further, CPRs in any form are storehouses of 
biodiversity that have contributed significantly to water and nutrient flow, 
and hence have enhanced the resilience of farming systems and livestock 
breeding for generations. These have been further strengthened through 
local tenurial arrangements (Gaur et al. 2018). Although mostly unmanaged, 
there are village-specific bye-laws to govern CRP management and use, and 
these need to be strengthened through linking institutions and by 
coordinating responses across the government, the private sector, and civil 
society to enhance the inherent adaptive capacities of these communities. 
Therefore, we have highlighted the need for viewing forests, pastures, and 
waste lands as durable community assets, which when managed collectively, 
aid local-level climate change adaptation processes. These adaptation 
strategies are strengthened by aligning the objectives of meeting livelihood 
security while maintaining the access and availability of natural resources. 
The decentralized governance of shared resources, therefore, aids collective 
decision-making, and the principles of inclusion and equity, sharing of 
responsibilities, and access to benefits have acted as a common 
denominator across all existing village institutions in both the districts. 

Lastly, the application of the SES framework in analysing the interactions 
and outcomes of social and ecological systems provides valuable insights 
into the nature of governance systems across the study sites and the degree 
of local environment stewardship practised. In Bhilwara, for instance, 
different rules exist for the management of various CPRs. In the Udaipur 
villages, on the other hand, the inability to address local-level conflicts in 



Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [108] 

resource use and the lack of proper monitoring and sanctioning 
mechanisms have created stark differences across the forest conditions in 
the two blocks. The extent of collective action, strength of village 
institutions, and variations in rules and sanctions determine the state of 
vegetation cover and product availability for each CPR, and consequently, 
its capacity for livelihood resilience. In fragile systems, as we saw in the case 
of Cheetarawas village, institutions for reducing climate risk and promoting 
adaptation may be too weak to empower communities in complex decision-
making, particularly in instances of resource conflict. Hence, resolving 
institutional challenges in the management of natural resources—including 
lack of coordination, monitoring, and enforcement—would be a big step 
towards more effective climate governance (Hijioka et al. 2012). The need 
now is therefore to advocate a pro-active stance (Jodha, 2000) to 
community-led climate change adaptation, particularly in the context of 
CPRs, which would lead to a genuine devolution in the domain of 
development. 

 

REFERENCES  

Ali, J. 2007. ―Commentary: Livestock, Common Property Resources and Rural 
Smallholders in India.‖ International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 5 (4): 265–268. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2007.9684826. 

Agarwal, A. 2000. ―Conceptualizing Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender 
Matters.‖ Cambridge Journal of Economics 24 (3): 283–310. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/24.3.283. 

———. 2001. ―Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of 
Resources.‖ World Development 29 (10): 1649–1672. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-
750X(01)00063-8. 

———. 2008. ―The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change.‖ 
Michigan: School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan. 
IFRI Working Paper W081-3: 8–29. 

Aguilar, B. and T. D. Sisk. 2009. ―A Framework to Evaluate Ecological and Social 
Outcomes of Collaborative Management: Lessons from Implementation with a 
Northern Arizona Collaborative Group.‖ Environmental Management 45: 132–44. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9400-y. 

Aryal, J. P., T. B. Sapkota, R. Khurana, et al. 2020. ―Climate Change and 
Agriculture in South Asia: Adaptation Options in Smallholder Production 
Systems.‖ Environment, Development and Sustainability 22: 5045–5075. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4. 

Balasubramanian, M., and V. Birundha. 2012. ―Climate Change and its Impact on 
India.‖ The IUP Journal of Environmental Sciences VI (1): 31–46. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2007.9684826
https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/24.3.283
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00063-8
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9400-y
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00414-4


[109] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

Bantilan, C. S., N. P. Singh, and N. S. Jodha. 2012. ―The Commons, Communities 
and Climate Change.‖ Economic & Political Weekly 47(13): 31. 

Beck, T. and C. Nesmith. 2001. ―Building on Poor People’s Capacities: The Case of 
Common Property Resources in India and West Africa.‖ World Development 29 (1): 
119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00089-9. 

Beck, T. and M. G. Ghosh. 2000. ―Common Property Resources and the Poor: 
Findings from West Bengal.‖ Economic & Political Weekly 65 (3): 147–153. 

Binder, C. R., J. Hinkel, P. W. G. Bots, C. Pahl-Wostl. 2013. ―Comparison of 
Frameworks for Analyzing Social-ecological systems.‖ Ecology and Society 18 (4): 26. 
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426 

Bromley, D. and M. Cernea. 1989. ―The Management of Common Property 
Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies.‖ World Bank 
Discussion Paper 57. Washington D.C.: World Bank. 

Carabine, E. and A. Lemma (principle authors). 2014. ―The IPCC’s Fifth 
Assessment Report: What’s in it for South Asia.‖ London and Cape Town: 
Overseas Development Institute and Climate and Development Knowledge 
Network. 

Chatterjee, K., A. Chatterjee, and S. Das. 2005. ―Case Study 2: India Community 
Adaptation to Drought in Rajasthan.‖ Institute of Development Studies (IDS) Bulletin   
36 (4): 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2005.tb00233.x 

Dupar, M. and N. Badenoch. 2002. ―Environment, Livelihoods and Local 
Institutions: Decentralization in mainland Southeast Asia.‖ Washington DC: World 
Resources Institute. 

Eakin, H., E. L. Tompkins, D. R. Nelson, and J. M. Anderies. 2012. ―Hidden Costs 
and Disparate Uncertainties: Trade-Offs in Approaches to Climate Policy.‖ In 
Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, edited by W. N. Adger,      
I. Lorenzoni, and K. L. O’Brien, 212–226. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge and New York. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596667.014. 

Gaur, M. K., R. K. Goyal, S. Kalappurakkal, and C. B. Pandey. 2018. Common 
Property Resources in Drylands of India. International Journal of Sustainable 
Development & World Ecology 25 (6): 491–499. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2018.1423646. 

GoI. 2012a. Agriculture Contingency Plan for Bhilwara. 2012. New Delhi: Department 
of Agriculture, Cooperation and Welfare, Government of India. 
http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/RAJ18-Bhilwara-9.3.2012.pdf 

GoI. 2012b. Agriculture Contingency Plan for Udaipur. 2012. New Delhi: Department 
of Agriculture, Cooperation and Welfare, Government of India. 
http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/RAJ22-Udaipur-9.3.2012.pdf. 

GoR. 2013. Hydrogeological Atlas of Rajasthan. 2013. Ground Water Department, 
Government of Rajasthan. 
https://energy.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/doitassets/water/Ground%20Water

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00089-9
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05551-180426
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2005.tb00233.x
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596667.014
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2018.1423646
http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/RAJ18-Bhilwara-9.3.2012.pdf
http://agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/RAJ22-Udaipur-9.3.2012.pdf
https://energy.rajasthan.gov.in/content/dam/doitassets/water/Ground%20Water/Pdf/PublicReports/Groundwater_Atlas/State/Rajasthan%20State%20Ground%20Water%20Atlas%202013%20V10.pdf


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [110] 

/Pdf/PublicReports/Groundwater_Atlas/State/Rajasthan%20State%20Ground%
20Water%20Atlas%202013%20V10.pdf 

Hall, R., I. Scoones, and B. White. 2013. ―Governing Global Land Deals: The Role 
of the State in the Rush for Land.‖ Development and Change 44(2): 189–210. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12017. 

Hijioka, Y., E. Lin, J. J. Pereira, R. T. Corlett, X. Cui, G. E. Insarov, R. D. Lasco,  
E. Lindgren, and A. Surjan. 2014. ―Asia.‖ In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working 
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, edited by V. R. Barros, C. B. Field, D. J. Dokken, et al, 1327–
1370. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. 

Ibisch, P. L., A. Vega E., and T. M. Herrmann, eds. 2010. ―Interdependence of 
Biodiversity and Development Under Global Change.‖ Second corrected edition. 
Technical Series No. 54. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological 
Diversity. 

India Meteorological Department (n.d.) ―Realized Weather‖. Pune: Ministry of 
Earth Sciences. https://mausam.imd.gov.in/imd_latest/contents/realized.php. 

International Forestry Resources and Institutions. 2013. ―Instruments/Forms Short 
Versions‖. http://ifri.forgov.org/ifri-instrumentsforms-short-version.  

Janssen, M. and J. Anderies. 2013. ―Sustaining the Commons.‖ Arizona, US: Centre 
for the Study of Institutional Diversity. 

Jodha, N. S. 1985. ―Common Property Resources and Dynamics of Rural Poverty 
(Field Evidences from Dry Regions of India).‖ Nepal: International Center for 
Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD). 
http://www.fao.org/3/v3960e/v3960e05.htm. 

———. 1986. ―Common Property Resources and Rural Poor in Dry Regions of 
India.‖ Economic and Political Weekly 21 (27): 1169–1181. 

———. 1990. ―Rural Common Property Resources: Contributions and Crisis.‖ 
Economic and Political Weekly 25 (26): A65–A78. 

———. 1992. ―Common Property Resources: a Missing Dimension of 
Development Strategies.‖ World Bank Discussion Paper 169, Washington D.C.: 
The World Bank. 

———. 2000. ―Waste Lands Management in India: Myths, Motives and 
Mechanisms.‖ Economic and Political Weekly 35 (6): 466–473. 

Kaushik, G. and K. C. Sharma. 2015. ―Climate Change and Rural Livelihoods: 
Adaptation and Vulnerability in Rajasthan.‖ Global NEST Journal 17: 41–47. 
https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.001376. 

Kumar, V. 2014. ―Changing Agricultural Scenario and Food Prospects in India: A 
Study with Special Reference to Rajasthan.‖ Rohtak: M. D. University. 
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/107021. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12017
https://mausam.imd.gov.in/imd_latest/contents/realized.php
http://ifri.forgov.org/ifri-instrumentsforms-short-version
http://www.fao.org/3/v3960e/v3960e05.htm
https://doi.org/10.30955/gnj.001376
http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/107021


[111] T. Chorran, B. R. Kuchimanchi, S. Karmakar, H. Sharma, D. Ghosh, P. Priyadarshini 

Lesorogol, C. K. 2008. ―Land Privatization and Pastoralist Well-Being in Kenya.‖ 
Development and Change 39 (2): 309–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
7660.2007.00481.x. 

Magrath, W. 1986. ―The Challenge of the Commons: the Allocation of Non-
Exclusive Resources.‖ Working Paper 14. Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 
Policy, Planning and Research Staff, Environment Department, World Resource 
Institute, 32–39. 

Meinzen-Dick, R., H. Markelova and K. Moore. ―The Role of Collective Action 
and Property Rights in Climate Change Strategies.‖ CGIAR CAPRi Policy Brief 7, 
Washington D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute. 

Mwagi, Esther and A. Wardell. 2012. ―Multi-level Governance of Forest 
Resources‖. International Journal of the Commons 6 (2): 79–103. 
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.374. 

McGinnis, M. D. and E. Ostrom. 2014. ―Social-Ecological System Framework: 
Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges.‖ Ecology and Society 19 (2): 30. 
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230 

Ostrom, E. 1988. ―Workshop in Political Theory & Policy Analysis‖. In Rethinking 
Institutional Analysis and Development: Issues, Alternatives, and Choices edited by             
V. Ostrom, D. Feeny, and H. Picht. San Francisco: ICS Press, 103–139.  

———. 2007. ―A Diagnostic Approach for Going Beyond Panaceas.‖ Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (39): 15181–15187. 
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104. 

——— 2009. ―A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-
Ecological Systems.‖ Science 325: 419–422. 
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133. 

Preston, B. L. and M. Stafford-Smith. 2009. ―Framing Vulnerability and Adaptive 
Capacity Assessment: Discussion Paper.‖ Canberra: The Commonwealth Scientific 
and Industrial Research Organisation. Climate Adaptation Flagship Working Paper 
No. 2. http://www.csiro.au/org/ClimateAdaptationFlagship.html.  

Rao, J., R. Chaturvedi, P. Priyadarshini, and K. Kumari. 2015. ―Commoning the 
Commons: Mediating for Spaces in Public Policy.‖ 2015 World Bank Conference 
On Land And Poverty, Washington D.C., March 23–27. Gujarat: Foundation for 
Ecological Security. 

Rathore, M. S. 2005. ―State Level Analysis of Drought Policies And Impacts in 
Rajasthan, India.‖ Working paper 93, Drought Series Paper No. 6, Colombo, Sri 
Lanka: International Water Management Institute ( IWMI).  

Rathore, N. S. and N. Verma. 2013. ―Impact of Climate Change in Southern 
Rajasthan, India.‖ International Journal of Water Resources and Arid Environments 2 (1): 
45–50.  

Reddy, S. R. C. and S. P. Chakravarty. 1999. ―Forest Dependence and Income 
Distribution in a Subsistence Economy: Evidence from India.‖ World Development 
27 (7): 1141–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00057-1. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00481.x
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7660.2007.00481.x
https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.374
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06387-190230
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
http://www.csiro.au/org/ClimateAdaptationFlagship.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00057-1


Ecology, Economy and Society–the INSEE Journal [112] 

Thapliyal, S., A. Mukherji, and D. Malghan. 2019. ―Economic Inequality and Loss 
of Commons: Evidence from India.‖ World Development 122: 693–712. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.012 

Tompkins, E. L., W. N. Adger, E. Boyd, S. Nicholson-cole, K. Weatherhead, N. 
Arnell. 2010. ―Observed Adaptation to Climate Change: UK Evidence of 
Transition to a Well-Adapted Society.‖ Global Environmental Change 20: 627–635. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.05.001. 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.012
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.05.001

