research paper on watershed management in india

Watershed development in India: Learning through experience

India's water availability in the future is predicted to be bleak if proper steps are not undertaken to deal with the management of the available water resources in the country. The report titled ' Watershed development in India - An approach evolving through experience ' by the World Bank , argues that according to recent estimates, the rising demand for water along with further increase in population and economic growth can result in about half the demand for water in the country being unmet by 2030.

Besides scarcity, problems related to poor quality of the available water resources may exacerbate the situation. Hence, solutions are needed that address the constraints on both the supply and demand side, and for both ground and surface water.

Implementing watershed management practices in India: Experiences from World Bank projects

The report argues that implementing good watershed management practices and approaches can go a long way and help India potentially better manage and augment its water resources.

The report analyses the experiences and lessons learnt from three World Bank supported watershed development projects in the Indian states of Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand with the aim to:

• Understand the feasibility and applicability of watershed management practices in other parts of the country and 
• Develop guidelines or models for the development and execution of new watershed development programmes in the country.

Watershed development in India

Watershed development is not a new concept in India and a peek into history shows that the people of India have adapted by either living along river banks or by harvesting, storing, and managing rainfall, runoff and stream flows. Most of India’s water management has been at the community level, relying upon diverse, imaginative and effective methods for harvesting rainwater in tanks and small underground storage structures.

The Government of India (GOI) has also adopted programs based on traditional water management approaches, which focus on micro-watersheds as the basis for planning and intervention since the late 1980s. The Guidelines for Watershed Development Projects became operational in 1995, and there has been a massive country-wide increase in the number and financing for community-based projects for micro-watershed development since then.

These projects are based on rainfall and runoff harvesting schemes that involve rehabilitating, building small check dams and tanks, and groundwater recharge structures. A lot of importance in being placed on these programmes as they have been thought of as important instruments to bring about rural development.

However, it has been realised that these programs have been more about rural development than about watersheds and water resources management and it has been felt that the programs should focus more on water resources objectives. Experiences have also shown that most programmes almost exclusively focus on RWH through community participation, and the extra water available is mostly utilised for irrigation at the cost of drinking water needs, leading to low storage.

Good practices, challenges and lessons learnt from the projects

Against this background, the report describes the experiences gained while implementing the three World Bank projects in India, which followed some good practices that included:

• Starting from the building block of the micro-watershed
• Decentralized and participatory development
• Investing in participatory, evidence-based micro-watershed plans
• Ensuring inclusion of all stakeholders
• Investing in capacity building and information sharing
• Linking conservation efforts to livelihoods for sustainability
• Monitoring and evaluation

Some of the challenges identified for future programmes included:

• The recent paradigm shift in watershed management approach
• Managing upstream and downstream interrelations
• Ensuring effective demand
• Managing common pool resources
• Promoting effective interagency collaboration
• Give due attention to economic benchmarks
• Provide incentives for sustainability

The lessons learned from the case studies were:

• The use of the micro-watershed as the basic unit for planning and intervention was found to be useful, but the larger goals of protecting and conserving hydrologic services and/or managing negative downstream and groundwater impacts remained to be addressed as the micro-watershed approach was carried out in isolation.
• A micro project (at the sub-watershed level or micro-watershed level) needs to be  planned for at least five to seven years in order to build sufficient social capital.
• Projects involving multiple agencies are more successful when institutional arrangements make use of the comparative advantages of each of the partners.
• Programs need to adopt integrated water resources planning at the micro-watershed level.
• Linking livelihoods to watershed development objectives was a best practice among the three projects.
• Natural resources based projects should be also focussed on developing sustainable livelihood options for the beneficiaries.
• The projects made strong contributions in the institutional aspects of Watershed Management (WSM).
• Transparency and public accountability was found to be the key to smooth implementation and harmonious social relations.
• All the projects represented global good practices on social issues.
• The inclusion, empowerment and mainstreaming of women, the poor and vulnerable groups into the decision-making processes was found to be crucial for the sustainability of the project.
• The mode of interactions of the agency personnel with the community set the tone for the project and determined its outcomes.

Please download a copy of the report below.

• Ways to Give
• Contact an Expert
• Explore WRI Perspectives

Filter Your Site Experience by Topic

Applying the filters below will filter all articles, data, insights and projects by the topic area you select.

• All Topics Remove filter
• Climate filter site by Climate
• Cities filter site by Cities
• Energy filter site by Energy
• Food filter site by Food
• Forests filter site by Forests
• Freshwater filter site by Freshwater
• Ocean filter site by Ocean
• Business filter site by Business
• Economics filter site by Economics
• Finance filter site by Finance
• Equity & Governance filter site by Equity & Governance

Search WRI.org

Not sure where to find something? Search all of the site's content.

Watershed Development in India

Economic Valuation and Adaptation Considerations

This paper examines how economic valuation can improve our understanding of watershed development and how to overcome challenges related to data collection, valuing direct and indirect benefits, and climate change adaptation.

Key Findings

In a benefit-cost analysis of a WSD located in the Kumbharwadi watershed of Maharashtra, results show a net present value of $5.08 to $7.43 million over the 15-year project period, and a positive benefit-cost ratio of 2.3 to 3.8, showing that this has been a positive investment for the 171 households of the Kumbharwadi watershed. The BCA results include only improvements in agricultural and livestock income, as well as avoided costs of traveling for fuel and water and government-supplied water tankers. We estimate that tree planting efforts resulted in carbon sequestration benefits worth $1 to $1.4 million. Additional co-benefits which were not valued due to data constraints included:

• Improvements in habitat and biodiversity.
• Increase in school attendance and enrollment.
• Improvements in nutrition, dietary diversity, and human health.
• Female empowerment through the creation of 11 self-help groups that manage micro-credit loans.
• Improved resilience to drought and temperature fluctuations
• Improved community coordination and collective action resulting in reduced conflicts and transaction costs.

Key data collection challenges for economic valuations of WSD include:

• Lack of consistency in data reporting for social, environmental, and economic indicators of WSD projects by implementing agencies.
• Lack of consistency in data collection as project impact assessments are often completed by different actors.
• Insufficient acknowledgment of non-market and co-benefits that can help generate greater awareness of ecosystem services and societal benefits, as well as provide a broader picture of WSD impacts.
• Lack of post-project impact assessments that can help determine whether perceived benefits are actually long-term benefits that contribute to resilience to drought and other factors.

Key considerations and recommendations for climate change adaptation interventions and projects include:

• Economic valuation can provide information to help develop and tailor CCA interventions and strategies.
• Economic valuation of WSD projects should leverage community participation for data collection.
• Economic valuations should consider market, non-market, and co-benefits of WSD projects.
• Economic valuations should consider how benefits are distributed among economic classes, on-farm and off-farm stakeholders, and genders.
• Guidance is needed from WSD funders and researchers to help implementing agencies standardize data collection processes and reporting protocols.

Executive Summary

Watershed Development (WSD) in India has been a part of the national approach to improve agricultural production and alleviate poverty in rainfed regions since the 1970s. Watershed Development programs aim to restore degraded watersheds in rainfed regions to increase their capacity to capture and store rainwater, reduce soil erosion, and improve soil nutrient and carbon content so they can produce greater agricultural yields and other benefits. As the majority of India’s rural poor live in these regions and are dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods and sustenance, improvements in agricultural yields improve human welfare while simultaneously improving national food security.

While WSD receives a significant amount of government attention and funding, there is not a clear understanding among practitioners of the overall effectiveness of WSD programs in meeting the objectives of food security and poverty alleviation. There is also little concrete evidence of how revitalized ecosystems might improve resilience to climate change. A reason behind this lack of understanding is that data collection and evaluation efforts for WSD have lacked rigor and consistency between WSD implementing and administrative agencies. Additionally, evaluations of WSD have tended to focus on describing changes in key indicators and providing project narratives, and as a result, have not provided a clear picture of the economic, social, and environmental benefits for WSD beneficiaries.

This paper argues that there is a clear need for more systematic economic valuation of WSD initiatives to better prioritize government funding and WSD guidelines, foster greater awareness of the benefits of ecosystem restoration for food security and poverty alleviation, and improve the planning and implementation of projects. Economic valuation is a useful tool that assigns monetary values to benefits of WSD, including social and environmental benefits. Economic valuation can contribute to improved WSD decision-making, awareness, and planning, by allowing comparison of project costs and benefits through decision support tools like benefit-cost analysis.

In 2012, the World Resources Institute (WRI) partnered with a WSD implementing agency, the Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), to conduct an economic valuation of one of its WSD projects using benefit-cost analysis (BCA) and review their recent Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Project. WOTR is an NGO based in Pune, India, that has been implementing WSD projects since 1993. It is one of the first WSD organizations to develop a CCA strategy in India. The objective of this partnership was to better understand the need for economic valuation and related data collection and analysis challenges, as well as to foster an understanding of CCA interventions. This paper provides a history of WSD and evaluation measures and challenges. We also present methods and results from our BCA of a WOTR-implemented participatory WSD project located in Maharashtra and highlight our data collection challenges. We then provide an overview of WOTR’s CCA Project, which was initiated in 2009 and has been implemented in nearly 50 villages in three states, and discuss related valuation considerations and recommendations.

Primary Contacts

Senior Economist, WRI's Global Economics Center

How You Can Help

WRI relies on the generosity of donors like you to turn research into action. You can support our work by making a gift today or exploring other ways to give.

Stay Informed

World Resources Institute 10 G Street NE Suite 800 Washington DC 20002 +1 (202) 729-7600

© 2024 World Resources Institute

Join our live presentation on Jan 23rd as we present four stories that will shape 2024, followed by a live Q&A.

Together, we can unleash the positive, tangible and system-wide transformations needed to protect our planet for this and future generations.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Watershed Development in Maharashtra: Present Scenario and Issues for Restructuring the Programme

2006, Society for Promoting …

Related Papers

Eshwer Kale

Dr. Satish Bhagwatrao Aher

dolr.nic.in

aradhana singh

Sudhirendar Sharma

Ganesh Pangare

intranet.icrisat.org

Marcella D'Souza

Sharachchandra (Sharad) Lele

Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts

Pieter van der Zaag

VIDULA SWAMI

The paper discusses different approaches of watershed management programs implemented in South Asia, with special reference to India, based on existing literature and f ield experiences. Watershed degradation, particularly in hilly areas as well as water deficiency in draught prone areas due to lack of proper watershed development programmes, is critical Problem in India. A participatory approach has been adopted in watershed management during the last decade in many developing countries. Participatory Watershed management is meant for growing biomass, the pipeline for prosperity of the people for bridging the gap between poverty line and per capita income. In achieving this objective, the people’s part is awareness, participation and response. The state should revise the methods and methodologies as frequently as possible as long as they are appropriate and economical. Whatever may be the value of a plan, the impact of participatory watershed management depends on effectiveness of ...

Dr. Ch. Venkata Krishna Reddy

The development of rainfed area is imperative not only because of its contribution to the total food production, but also for augmenting other resources in the drylands such as fodder, fruit, timber, etc. The prevailing land use system accompanied by unabated deforestation is resulting in rapid erosion of soil and depletion of water level. Uncontrolled grazing of lands washes away invaluable soil nutrients and continuous soil erosion is silting up reservoirs at an alarming rate, causing loss of storage capacity of reservoirs. About 66 per cent of area is rainfed even today. The productivity of crops in drylands is very low due to soil erosion, depletion of moisture resources, low soil fertility, denuding the plantation, bringing marginal soil under plough, etc. soil erosion is a major problem in drylands due to lack of ground coverage with grass or crops during the pre-monsoon period. Though 33 per cent of geographical area should be under forests, at present only 21 per cent of area is under forest, the effective forest area is only about 9 per cent due to wide-spread deforestation. There are less water resources to meet the requirements of wild animals in the summer season. unemployment, seasonal unemployment, disguised unemployment, etc., are common in drylands resulting in poverty, malnutrition and imbalanced diet. Hence watershed development programme is considered the best programme to conserve soil and water, increase vegetation and water resources, and improve productivity of crops, employment opportunities to rural folk and food intake in terms of nutrition value. Nearly 46 mandals out of the total 56 mandals in Prakasam district are identified as drought prone areas, where dried crop and barren land, due to lack of irrigation is obviously seen. Government has implemented Watershed Development Programme in this district under DPAP. To study how far the Watershed Development Programme enhanced the yield of crop, besides providing employment opportunities to the people and improving their income potentialities, this study, “Watershed Development Programme in India – with special reference to Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh” has been purposively selected. Moreover being the native of Prakasam District, the researcher has selected to study this topic on his native district with perfect concern and commitment to analyse the implementation of Watershed Development Programme and to bring his suggestions to the notice of the policy makers.

RELATED PAPERS

Ionut Dumitru

Science and Technology Development Journal

Martin Bolle

Norbert Pohlmann

The Mediterranean region under climate change

Laurent Lespez

Prosiding Seminar Nasional Fakultas Pertanian UNS

Samanhudi Samanhudi

Éducation relative à l'environnement

Paul R Carr

Optics Letters

Fernando Moreno

2009 IEEE Conference on the History of Technical Societies

Justin Bjorn Lee Sanchez

Gill Chitty

Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials

Ruben Candela

Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana

Belén Almeida Cabrejas

GILBERTO CHAPARRO

Indian pediatrics

Madhukar Bharambe

International Journal of Orthopaedics

marcio leandro

cezmi yurtsever

SLAS Discovery

Pritika Narayan

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Hayder Salman

Seminars in Cancer Biology

Anil Sharma

Obesity Research & Clinical Practice

Justine Naylor

Evolution & development

Guillermo Ponz Segrelles

Light Magazine

VIVIAN ALEJANDRA NEIRA MOLINA

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Login To RMS System
• About JETIR URP
• About All Approval and Licence
• Conference/Special Issue Proposal
• Book and Dissertation/Thesis Publication
• How start New Journal & Software
• Best Papers Award
• Mission and Vision
• Reviewer Board
• Join JETIR URP
• Call For Paper
• Research Areas
• Publication Guidelines
• Sample Paper Format
• Submit Paper Online
• Processing Charges
• Hard Copy and DOI Charges
• Check Your Paper Status
• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Special Issues
• Conference Proposal
• Recent Conference
• Published Thesis

Contact Us Click Here

Whatsapp contact click here, published in:.

Volume 10 Issue 2 February-2023 eISSN: 2349-5162

UGC and ISSN approved 7.95 impact factor UGC Approved Journal no 63975

Unique identifier.

Published Paper ID: JETIR2302251

Registration ID: 508668

Page Number

Post-publication.

• Downlaod eCertificate, Confirmation Letter
• editor board member
• JETIR front page
• Journal Back Page
• UGC Approval 14 June W.e.f of CARE List UGC Approved Journal no 63975

Share This Article

Important links:.

• Call for Paper
• Submit Manuscript online

• Vijay Kumar

Cite This Article

2349-5162 | Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar An International Scholarly Open Access Journal, Peer-Reviewed, Refereed Journal Impact Factor 7.95 Calculate by Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar | AI-Powered Research Tool, Multidisciplinary, Monthly, Multilanguage Journal Indexing in All Major Database & Metadata, Citation Generator

Publication Details

Download paper / preview article.

Download Paper

Preview this article, download pdf, print this page.

Impact Factor:

Impact factor calculation click here current call for paper, call for paper cilck here for more info important links:.

• Follow Us on

• Developed by JETIR

Advertisement

Impact of Watershed Programmes in Bundelkhand Region of Madhya Pradesh, India: How Beneficiaries Perceive?

• Full-Length Research Article
• Published: 24 November 2020
• Volume 10 , pages 448–456, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Biswajit Mondal   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9677-4689 1 ,
• Alka Singh 2 ,
• G. A. K. Kumar 1 ,
• M. K. Sinha 3 &
• Suresh Kumar 4  

282 Accesses

Explore all metrics

An ex- post study was conducted to assess the impact of watershed development programmes, and appraisal was made with perceptions of beneficiaries of respective watersheds. The water resources development activities were accorded the highest priority with the allocation of 42% of the total budget, followed by soil conservation activities with the allocation of 27% of the budget. The cumulative effect of land-based activities was observed in terms of an increase in cultivated area (34%), cropping intensity (44%), afforestation/plantation (34%), irrigation intensity (13%) as well as a decrease in current fallow (78%) and wasteland (35%). The value of crop diversification index and cultivated land utilization index were higher over pre-project situations, and higher value of crop yield index indicated the higher productivity levels for major crops in watershed villages. Positive and significant differences in various socio-economic attributes among watersheds and control areas like labour absorptions and income from crop enterprises also endorsed the positive effects of watershed-based interventions. However, yield enhancement, groundwater recharge, saving of resources and augmentation of income were the major benefits of various watershed-based interventions as perceived by the beneficiary households.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Implications of Watershed Management Programs for Sustainable Development in Rural Scenario—A Case Study from Foothills of Punjab State, India

Birinder Kaur, Koyel Sur, … Brijendra Pateriya

Watershed degradation and management practices in north-western highland Ethiopia

Desalew Meseret Moges & H. Gangadhara Bhat

Enhancing livelihood assets of households through watershed management intervention program: case of upper Gibe basin, Southwest Ethiopia

Fekadu Mengistu & Engdawork Assefa

Arya SL, Yadav RP (2006) Economic viability of rainwater harvesting by renovating village ponds in small agricultural watershed of Joharanpur. Agric Econ Res Rev 19:71–82

Google Scholar  

Chuang FT (1973) An analysis of change of Taiwan’s cultivated land utilization for recent years. Rural Econ. Div. JCRR Rep, 21, Taipei, Taiwan

Dass A, Sudhishri S, Patnaik US, Lenka NK (2009) Effect of agronomic management on watershed productivity, impact indices, crop diversification and soil fertility in Eastern Ghats of Orissa, India. J Soil Water Conserv 8:34–42

Fan S, Hazell P (1997) Should India invest more in less-favoured areas? Environment and Production Technology Division Discussion Paper No. 25, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington D.C, USA

Garett EH, Woodworth RS (1969) Statistics in psychology and education. Vakils, Feffer and Simons Pvt. Ltd., Bombay, p 329

Garg KK, Karlberg L, Barron J, Wani SP, Rockstrom J (2012) Assessing impact of agricultural water interventions at the Kothapally watershed, Southern India. Hydrol Process 26:387–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8138

Article   Google Scholar  

Inter-Ministerial Central Team on Drought Mitigation (2008) Report on drought mitigation strategy for Bundelkhand Region of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh. Government of India. Available at http://nraa.gov.in/pdf/drought%20mitigation%20strategy%20for%20bundelkhand.pdf

Johnson NL, Baltodano ME (2004) The economics of community watershed management: some evidence from Nicaragua. Ecol Econ 49:57–71

Joshi PK, Jha AK, Wani Suhas P, Sreedevi TK and Shaheen FA (2008) Impact of watershed program and conditions for success: a meta-analysis approach. Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report no. 46. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India; International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, p 24

Kademani SBK (2011) Resource use efficiency of dryland ragi cultivators in DPAP-watershed and non-watershed areas: a comparative analysis. IUP J Agric Econ 8:18–27

Kalyan Kumar BM (2007) An economic evaluation of NWDPRA and Sujala watershed programme in Northern Karnataka: a comparative study. Un-published M.Sc. Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Available at http://etd.uasd.edu/ft/th9617.pdf

Mondal B, Adhikari RN (2007) Profitability of farm productions: a study in a semi-arid watershed. Int J Agric Sci 3:25–27

Mondal B, Loganandhan N (2013) Employment generation potential of watershed development programmes in semi-arid tropics of India. Afr J Agric Res 8:2948–2955. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.6966

Mondal B, Nalatwadmath SK (2014) How much is a watershed worth? an assessment. Indian J Soil Conserv 42:322–327

Mondal B, Singh A, Sekar I, Sinha MK, Kumar S, Ramajayam D (2016) Institutional arrangements for watershed development programmes in Bundelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh, India: an explorative study. Int J Water Resour Dev 32:219–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2015.1060195

MoRD (2001) Guidelines for watershed development: (Revised 2001) New Delhi, India: Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India

Palanisami K, Kumar SD (2009) Impacts of watershed development programmes: experiences and evidences from Tamil Nadu. MPRA Paper No. 18653. Available at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/18653/

Pantin D, Reid V (2005) Economic valuation study: action learning project on incentives for improved water services in the Buff Bay/Pencar watershed. CANARI Who Pays for Water? Project Document No. 2. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute, Laventille, Trinidad and Tobago and International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK

Patel RK, Kumbhare SL (1980) Employment of rural women in dairy enterprise. Indian Dairyman 32:852–854

Ramaswamy K, Palanisami K (2001) Some impact indicators and experiences of Watershed Development in drought prone areas of Tamil Nadu. In: Workshop on Watershed Management Strategies, Water Technology Centre, TNAU, Coimbatore, pp 88–98

Sharda VN, Juyal GP, Naik BS (2008) Watershed development in India: status and perspective. Central Soil and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, Dehradun

Sharda VN, Dogra P, Dhyani BL (2012) Indicators for assessing the impact of watershed development programmes in different regions of India. Indian J Soil Conserv 40:1–12

Sharma BR, Scott CA (2005) Watershed management challenges: introduction and overview. In: Sharma BR, Samra, JS, Scott CA, Wani SP (eds) Watershed management challenges: improving productivity, resources and livelihoods. International Water Management Institute and International Crop Research Institute for Semi-arid Tropics, Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, pp 245–257

Shiferaw B, Rao KPC (2006) Integrated management of watersheds for agricultural diversification and sustainable livelihoods in Eastern and Central Africa: lessons and experiences from semi-arid South Asia. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop held at ICRISAT, Nairobi, 6–7 December 2004. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru 502324, India

Shiyani RL, Pandya HR (1998) Diversification of agriculture in Gujarat: a spatio-temporal analysis. Indian J Agric Econ 53(4):627–639

Sikka AK, Madhu M, Chand S, Singh DV, Selvi V, Sundarambhal P, Jeevarathanam K, Murugaiah M (2014) Impact analysis of participatory watershed development programme in semi-arid region of Tamil Nadu, India. Indian J Soil Conserv 42:98–106

Singh SB, Prakash N (2010) Socioeconomic impact of watershed development project in Manipur. Indian Res J Exten Edu 10:78–82

Sreedevi TK, Wani SP, Sudi R, Patel MS, Jayesh T, Singh SN, Shah T (2006) On-site and off-site impact of watershed development: a case study of Rajasamadhiyala, Gujarat, India Global Theme on Agro-ecosystems Report No. 20, Patancheru 502 324. Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT)

Tanguilig HC, Tanguilig VC (2009) Institutional aspects of local participatory strategies in natural resource management. Field Actions Science Report. www.factsreports.org

Venkateswarlu B, Prasad JVNS (2012) Carrying capacity of Indian agriculture: issues related to rainfed agriculture. Curr Sci 102:882–888

Wani SP, Rockström J, Sahrawat KL (2011) Integrated watershed management in rainfed agriculture. Taylor & Francis Group, London

Book   Google Scholar  

Wolka K, Moges A, Yimer F (2013) Farmers’ perception of the effects of soil and water conservation structures on crop production: the case of Bokole watershed, Southern Ethiopia. African J Environ Sci Technol 7:990–1000. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJEST2013.1529

Working EJ (1940) Crop-yield index numbers. J Farm Econ 22(4):701. https://doi.org/10.2307/1232195

Download references

The funding was provided by Indian Council of Agricultural Research through Senior Research Fellowship.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

ICAR-National Rice Research Institute, Cuttack, Odisha, 753 006, India

Biswajit Mondal & G. A. K. Kumar

ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi, 110 012, India

ICAR-Indian Institute of Water Management, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751 023, India

M. K. Sinha

ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Research Centre, Bellary, Karnataka, 583104, India

Suresh Kumar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Biswajit Mondal .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Mondal, B., Singh, A., Kumar, G.A.K. et al. Impact of Watershed Programmes in Bundelkhand Region of Madhya Pradesh, India: How Beneficiaries Perceive?. Agric Res 10 , 448–456 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-020-00510-2

Download citation

Received : 23 May 2019

Accepted : 07 September 2020

Published : 24 November 2020

Issue Date : September 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-020-00510-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Bundelkhand region
• Farmer’s perceptions
• Garrett ranking
• Observed benefit
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research