Evaluating sustainable agricultural livelihood security in West Bengal, India: a principal component analysis approach

Abstract

This study undertook an examination of livelihood security in West Bengal, a predominantly agriculture-based region situated in eastern India. Our investigation centred around the Sustainable Agriculture Livelihood Security Index (SALSI), which integrates four fundamental dimensions: ecological security index (ESI), economic efficiency index (EEI), infrastructure sufficiency index (ISI) and social equity index (SEI), and represented a total of 36 diverse indicators associated with these SALSI. We employed the “non-dimensionalization” approach to quantify the aforementioned dimensions. Principal component analysis was then employed to discern the pivotal indicators associated with each component of the SALSI. The study unveiled notable inter-district spatial variations in the four facets of the SALSI. Notably, Paschim Medinipur achieved the highest SALSI score at 0.60, while Jalpaiguri recorded the lowest at 0.35. Among the sub-components, ESI emerged as the strongest with a score of 0.57, surpassing EEI (0.52), ISI (0.36) and SEI (0.46). Remarkably, Purulia, Jalpaiguri and Uttar Dinajpur districts exhibited a notably limited level of sustainability in their agriculture-based livelihoods. In contrast, North 24 Parganas, Birbhum, Uttar Dinajpur, Purba Medinipur, Paschim Medinipur and Bardhaman demonstrated a high degree of sustainability in their agricultural livelihoods. These findings offer valuable insights to inform policymakers and relevant stakeholders, facilitating the transformation of districts with low sustainability levels into regions with moderate and high agricultural sustainability through the formulation and implementation of appropriate policies. The methodology presented in this study can be effectively applied across varying scales in other regions within India and in similar contexts in other developing nations.

Graphical abstract

1 Introduction

For centuries, rural communities around the world have relied on their agricultural pursuits not only for sustenance but also as a foundation for their livelihoods. Despite considerable agricultural pursuits, the effects of economic hardship tend to manifest deepest in rural areas. The effects of poverty are frequently felt most severely in rural areas, which are inhabited by an unprecedented proportion of the worldwide most impoverished people. On a global scale, rural areas are responsible for enduring the largest portion of the burden associated with extreme poverty where around 79 per cent of people living in impoverished conditions are presumed to reside in rural areas (World Bank, 2018). The determinants of rural poverty can be categorized into three distinct dimensions: social, economic and environmental (Majumder, 2021; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b). Social exclusion patterns within rural communities can undermine cohesion and present additional obstacles for certain groups in their pursuit of improving livelihoods. Moreover, limited economic diversification in rural areas can hinder the creation of alternative income-generating opportunities. Empirically, the majority of rural areas depend significantly on agriculture as their primary means of livelihood. However, factors such as low agricultural productivity, outdated farming techniques, limited access to modern inputs and technologies, and vulnerability to climate change can lead to decreased yields, income instability and persistent poverty. Additionally, uncertainty over land ownership limits the potential for rural communities to leverage their land for economic development and poverty reduction. So, addressing these socio-economic challenges of rural poverty requires a multifaceted approach that focuses on improving agricultural sustainability. Assessing the sustainability of agricultural livelihoods helps identify practices that promote long-term food security by ensuring efficient use of resources, minimizing environmental impacts and enhancing agricultural productivity and resilience.

For the overall growth of a developing nation, it is feasible to focus on building resilience and community participation of rural areas (Beloskar & Rao, 2022; Cetin, 2016; Habib & Mourad, 2023; Zhou et al., 2021). The word ‘rural development’ refers to the coordinated efforts made to improve rural areas in terms of modernization, employment generation, agricultural competitiveness, resource management, climate change mitigation and environmental protection (Abreu & Mesias, 2020; Cetin, 2020a, 2020b; Habib, 2023a, 2023b). A region’s rural development depends on agro-industrial development or modernization of a region (Huttunen, 2019). Currently, in the development debate, the concept of sustainable livelihood is getting the priority (Garai et al., 2019; Kilinc-Ata, 2017; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b). The idea of livelihood emerged in late 1980 (De & Das, 2021). Eliminating poverty, creating new jobs, ensuring adequate food are available, effectively managing and conserving scarce resources: all of these things are intrinsically linked to the security of community livelihoods (Cetin, 2020a, 2020b; Pani & Mishra, 2022). This scheme adopts a pragmatic perspective, focusing on three essential developmental aspects: society, environment and the economy (De & Das, 2021; Dempsey et al., 2011). Chambers and Conway (1992) stated that the sustainability of a livelihood can be characterized by its ability to endure and rebound from various pressures and unexpected disruptions. Additionally, it should strive to enhance or sustain its capacities and resources without depleting the surrounding natural resources. The resilience of agricultural-based livelihoods is underscored by the utilization of the agriculture-based livelihood security index, as suggested by Roy et al. in (2022). This index not only measures the stability of agricultural livelihoods but also guides policymakers in addressing crucial areas for enhancing the well-being of rural communities. The prime objective of the agriculture-based sustainable framework is to examine four types of attributes possessed by individuals for the purpose of developing their livelihood opportunities: ecological security, economic productivity, social equity and infrastructural sufficiency (Garai et al., 2019). Sustaining agriculture plays a crucial role in ensuring the long-term economic viability of farming communities (Sajjad & Nasreen, 2016). A significant portion of India’s economy relies on agriculture, solidifying its position as one of the leading countries in the world in terms of agricultural dependence (Sridhara et al., 2022). A majority portion of India’s rural inhabitants relied on agriculture, a sector pioneered by the country’s ancient scientific community, for their living (Garai et al., 2019). Approximately two-thirds of the rural population in India depend on agriculture as their primary income source, underscoring its vital role as the ‘backbone’ of the country’s economy (Sajjad & Nasreen, 2016). Indian agriculture is characterized by an emphasis on crop production, livestock, and a hybridization fishing system. Ensuring the sustenance of rural livelihoods is pivotal for the holistic socio-economic progress of West Bengal. In the twenty-first century, the government’s imperative decision lies in the sustainable development of rural areas within the state.

Sustainable development, a concept that has become increasingly crucial in recent decades, embodies a holistic strategy addressing the world’s most pressing challenges while safeguarding the welfare of both present and future generations (Habib, 2022; Majumder, 2021; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b). The concept of sustainable development (SD) has solidified its position in the mainstream discourse as an exceptionally vital conceptual framework for guiding long-term planning and policymaking (Habib, 2023a, 2023b; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b). The idea of SD became widely recognized following the release of the Brundtland Report, which is also referred to as “Our Common Future”. This report was issued in 1987 by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development (Majumder et al., 2022a, 2022b). In this context, the term ‘sustainable development’ encompasses a comprehensive approach to societal advancement, aiming to fulfil the requirements of the current generation without jeopardizing the capacity of future generations to satisfy their own necessities (Majumder et al., 2022a, 2022b; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b). At its core, SD deliver the way forward to harmonize economic progression, societal justice and environmental safety (Habib & Kayani, 2022; Habib, 2023a, 2023b). Meanwhile, the fundamental idea of SD is to recognize the importance of economic growth and prosperity in improving livelihoods and well-being of the bottom-level population group (Cetin et al., 2017; Cetin & Sevik, 2016; Priya and Singh, 2023).

Agriculture is now widely recognized as the foundation of the rural economy (Das et al., 2023). Assessing the sustainability of agricultural livelihoods helps identify strategies that enhance economic resilience, such as diversification, value addition, access to markets and integration of sustainable practices that improve productivity and profitability. Agricultural livelihood sustainability assessments provide crucial information for policymakers, stakeholders and decision-makers to formulate evidence-based policies and strategies. Such assessments help prioritize interventions, allocate resources efficiently and monitor the progress of sustainability initiatives. These literary discussions implicate the needs of integrated sustainable agricultural livelihoods approach and the importance for comprehensive indices to assess security and sustainability of agrarian community as a whole. Further, COVID-19 exposed and exacerbated social inequalities, disproportionately affecting marginalized communities (Mourad et al., 2021a, 2021b; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2021; Mourad et al., 2022). It stressed on the imperative of confronting inequalities in healthcare access, educational opportunities and economic prospects (Mourad et al., 2021a, 2021b; Tarkar, 2020). So, amid the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic, evaluating the durability of agricultural livelihoods has become an urgent priority (Beckman & Countryman, 2021). Sustainable agricultural techniques involve diversification, value-added activities, market access and incorporation of eco-friendly methods, all of which bolster economic resilience. The COVID-19 crisis has further underscored the significance of these techniques by exposing inadequacies in conventional farming systems (Beckman & Countryman, 2021; Dev, 2020). The COVID-19 crisis highlighted the need for robust social safety nets for vulnerable farming communities. Addressing these challenges of COVID-19 requires a multidimensional approach that integrates social, economic and environmental dimensions (Habib & Kayani, 2023; Mourad et al., 2021a, 2021b).

Although most studies address sustainable agriculture issues, while a few variables are associated with sustainable development goals. In India, studies on agriculture-based sustainable livelihoods at the district level incorporating the entire state are rare in recent literature. Based on the complexities of the issue, in this study, 36 indicators are considered and apply the Sustainable Agricultural Livelihood Security approach (SALSI) in the setting of West Bengal, India, using PCA technique. In this study, we embark on a novel investigation into the sustainable livelihood security performance of districts in West Bengal. Our research is distinct in that it introduces an Integrated Sustainable Agricultural Livelihood Security Index (ISALSI), a comprehensive metric that encompasses ecological, economic, infrastructure and social equity aspects at the district level. This pioneering approach allows us to identify priority regions for sustainable agricultural sector development in a holistic manner. Notably, prior studies in this context have largely overlooked the integration of multiple agricultural systems, including crop, livestock and fishery, in assessing livelihood security. Consequently, our study addresses this significant gap by evaluating the sustainable agriculture livelihood security index within the agrarian community, shedding new light on the multifaceted dynamics of agricultural sustainability in West Bengal. Earlier studies have motivated on the sustainable development and livelihood security assessment for general senses by aggregating all components from the perspective of overall development (Table 1). So, addressing the issue, here we consider four objectives as follows:

Table 1 Survey of literatures on the assessment of sustainable livelihood

1. To develop an integrated Sustainable Agricultural Livelihood Security Index (ISALSI) that integrates ecological security, economic efficiency, infrastructure sufficiency and social equity dimensions for the agrarian community in West Bengal, India,

2. To implement the SALSI framework to evaluate the current status of agrarian livelihood security in different regions of West Bengal and identify areas for improvement,

3. To determine the elements causative to variations in agricultural livelihood security among the agrarian community in West Bengal, India, and.

4. To provide policymakers and stakeholders with actionable insights for formulating evidence-based strategies to enhance sustainable rural development in West Bengal, India.

2 Theoretical framework

From the preceding discussion, it is clear that addressing sustainability and advancing the well-being of rural communities, which are closely connected to agriculture, demands substantial focus to promote inclusive development. The need for agricultural livelihood sustainability assessment is supported by an extensive range of references and backgrounds from reputable organizations and global initiatives. The UN has adopted the SDGs in 2015, which include specific targets related to agriculture, food security and stimulating sustainable resilience in rural areas. The significance of sustainable growth of agrarian community and rural livelihoods in achieving inclusive development cannot be overstated. It requires a comprehensive understanding of multiple dimensions that contribute to the overall well-being and resilience of the agrarian sector.

In connection with the research objective, we proposed a comprehensive Sustainable Agricultural Livelihood Security (SALS) approach, a ground-breaking tool designed to assess and enhance the well-being of agrarian communities while safeguarding the environmental sustainability. SALSI encapsulates the core essence of rural development by measuring the degree of agricultural livelihood security achieved by communities. This conceptual framework takes into account various interconnected factors, including economic stability, social equity, environmental conservation and technological innovation. For practically achieving the SALS framework in reality, we constructed a synthetic composite index, termed as Sustainable Agricultural Livelihood Security Index (SALSI). This comprehensive index aims to establish a holistic approach by integrating four key dimensions: ecological security, economic efficiency, infrastructure sufficiency and social equity. The proposed framework for quantifying the SLAS analyses the interplay between the selected dimensions and highlighting the need for an integrated approach. Encouraging economic activities is critical to commercial growth and progress in a particular region (Sridhara et al., 2022). In the course of engaging in economic activities, it is essential to take into account both ecological balance and social equity, as highlighted by Sridhara et al. (2022). However, economic activities that prioritize regional development often lead to environmental degradation and disrupt the ecological balance (Sridhara et al., 2022). For that reason, ecological security is an integral part of livelihood sustainability. Furthermore, the concept of economic efficiency plays a pivotal role in shaping the decision-making procedures of farmers. It also has a significant impact on the fluctuations of financial capital and the overall profitability of those engaged in agricultural activities (Sajjad & Nasreen, 2016). It encompasses the effective use of resources, which ultimately leads to financial gain (Sridhara et al., 2022). It indicates as the precursor for economic development of a region (Sridhara et al., 2022). Infrastructure sufficiency is another important pillar for livelihood sustainability (Garai et al., 2019). According to Garai et al. (2019), the provision of government assistance in terms of infrastructure availability contributes to enhancing the quality of life and fostering livelihood sustainability within rural agrarian communities. In addition, allowing to the social equity, everyone in an economy has fair opportunity to acquire resources, have influence over resources and make decisions (Sridhara et al., 2022). Any difference from the aforementioned is considered unfair and is expected to have a detrimental effect on the overall growth of the community or region. Therefore, it is asserted that the region’s development is significantly impacted by social equity (Sridhara et al., 2022). Here, the concept is particularly relevant in the milieu of pursuing SDGs, where the benefits of agricultural livelihood improvement are distributed equitably among every stakeholder concerned.

Moreover, the proposed conceptual framework acknowledges the interdependencies between the dimensions, highlighting the need for an integrated approach. By maintaining environmental assets and minimizing input costs, ecological sustainability promotes economic efficiency. Sustainability in farming techniques and effective links to marketplaces are two ecological and economic aspects that benefit from adequate infrastructure development. Additionally, Social equity is the foundation for all dimensions, as inclusive participation and equitable access to resources empower agrarian communities to adopt sustainable practices. Meanwhile, by recognizing the intricate interplay between ecological securities, economic efficiency, infrastructure sufficiency and social equity, policymakers and stakeholders can formulate comprehensive strategies that holistically address the needs of agrarian communities.

3 Literature review and hypotheses development

This section outlines the existing methods found in the literature to gain a better understanding of the research problem. Interestingly, numerous scholars have examined various aspects of household livelihood strategies. Some have focused on ecological sustainability (Butowski, 2016; Clemetsen & Van Laar, 2000; Degerli & Cetin, 2022; Edwards et al., 1993; Roy et al., 2022a, 2022b), while others have emphasized the economic dimension (Lynam & Herdt, 1989; Pani & Mishra, 2022; Smith & McDonald, 1998; Tisdell, 1996). Additionally, different scholars have addressed the concept of social sustainability (Majumder et al., 2023; Simon, 1989; Webster, 1999).

The concept of household livelihood security is relatively recent and signifies the ability of families and communities to enhance their assets, income and social well-being over time (Lindenberg, 2002; Majumder et al., 2022a, 2022b). For instance, there has been research on long-term regional development and livelihood enhancement (De & Das, 2021; Donohue & Biggs, 2015; Majumder et al., 2023; Singh & Hiremath, 2010), urban agglomerative-based livelihood and environmental sustainability (Cetin, 2015; Degerli & Çetin, 2022; Huang et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), water management (Nyamwanza & Kujinga, 2016), household-based rural development, social aspects and innovative technological adaptation (Sargani et al., 2022; Xie et al., 2023), as well as infrastructural development, human development and well-being (Cetin, 2019; Iriarte & Musikanski, 2019; Korsakienė 2011). Moreover, researchers have investigated the influence of climate change on agricultural adaptation (Aryal et al., 2019; Burke & Emerick, 2016; Das et al., 2023; Masud et al., 2017).

Several studies have attempted to assess the level of sustainability within the agricultural sector and among communities engaged in these activities, considering various dimensions of sustainability, including financial viability, ecological conservation and collective public efforts. By examining agricultural practices, systems and impacts, researchers aim to understand the extent to which agricultural livelihoods align with principles of sustainable development. Similarly, Sajjad and Nasreen (2016) conducted a study in the Vaishali district of India, using site-specific indicators to assess the sustainability of farming practices at the farm level, providing valuable insights into its status. This research takes a multifaceted approach, considering economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainability.

Furthermore, various studies have identified that a combination of socio-economic, environmental and institutional factors significantly influences the welfare and resilience of rural agrarian communities (Kelly et al., 2015; Mabe et al., 2020; Majumder et al., 2023; Roy et al., 2020; Simane et al., 2016). Agrarian communities are highly susceptible to the impacts of climate change, particularly extreme weather events, environmental degradation, soil erosion and the depletion of natural resources (Cetin & Sevik, 2016; Masud et al., 2017; Sargani et al., 2022; Simane et al., 2016).

The preceding discussion highlights the multitude of challenges facing rural livelihoods. Moreover, rural areas often contend with limited access to essential services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure and markets (De & Das, 2021; Majumder et al., 2023; Simane et al., 2016). This lack of infrastructure and services can impede economic growth, constrain opportunities and perpetuate the cycle of poverty in rural communities (Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b; Roy et al., 2020; Masud et al., 2017; Cetin & Sevik, 2016). To navigate the complex landscape of rural livelihoods successfully, it is imperative to adopt a universal approach that takes into account the social, economic and environmental dimensions of development. By supporting sustainable agriculture, empowering local communities, promoting equitable access to resources and harnessing expertise for rural development, we can pave the way for vibrant and thriving rural livelihoods that uplift individuals and their surrounding ecosystems (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Conceptual framework of sustainable agricultural livelihood security index (Modified after DFID, 1999)

Additionally, Li et al. (2020) have explored how livelihood assets of smallholder farmers contribute to the broader goal of achieving sustainable development. Kim and Marcouiller (2020) examined the profile of societal and economic adaptability to flood hazards for long-term development along the Mississippi River basin in the USA from 1990 to 2010. In Ethiopia, Gebrekidan Abbay et al. (2018) studied the effect of social mobility on sustainable livelihoods. Zhang and Fang (2020) adopted a capital-based approach to measure sustainability and livelihood susceptibility for the community of the Koshi river basin in Nepal. Antwi et al. (2017) developed a composite sustainability index to measure the sustainability of Ghana’s mine-affected communities. Satpati and Sharma (2021) sought to measure livelihood options and security among tribal communities in the southwestern plateau region of West Bengal. Based on ecological resilience, economic efficiency, infrastructure sufficiency and social equity, Garai et al. (2019) developed an income-generating and livestock-based sustainable livelihood security index in West Bengal. Pani and Mishra (2022) conducted a quantitative assessment that considered social, economic and ecological components to measure sustainable livelihood security across 30 districts in Odisha. Chand et al. (2015) developed and measured an integrated sustainability index among smallholder dairy farmers in Rajasthan, India. De and Das (2021) used a composite measure that included environmental, physical, human and socio-economic capital to quantify the long-term resilience of people’s living conditions in the Indian Sundarban. Sridhara et al. (2022) explored the sustainable development priorities for agriculture in Karnataka, India, using variables of sustainable livelihood security that incorporated economic, ecological and social equity dimensions. Assessing agricultural sustainability at the national level in terms of socio-economic and agro-climatic conditions is complex due to the considerable natural environment heterogeneity (Sajjad & Islamia, 2017).

It is worth noting that the practical limitations of this approach have been well-established in the classical literature. A significant research gap exists in the current literature regarding the integration of various livelihood scenarios into studies related to this field. Many existing studies offer only a broad overview of the topic, limiting their applicability and failing to capture the nuanced and specific livelihood contexts. This research gap underscores the need for comprehensive investigations that delve deeper into diverse scenarios and their unique dynamics. Such an approach allows for a more in-depth understanding of the challenges, opportunities and interventions necessary for sustainable development and inclusive growth.

Based on the theoretical aspects and literature review outlined above, we propose four hypotheses:

H1: There is a positive association between the ecological security index and the sustainable agricultural livelihood security index.

H2: The economic efficiency index is positively related to the sustainable agricultural livelihood security index.

H3: The infrastructure sufficiency index is positively related to the sustainable agricultural livelihood security index.

H4: Higher levels of social equity are associated with greater sustainable agricultural livelihood security among agrarian communities.

4 Data and methodology

4.1 Study location

West Bengal, situated in the eastern part of India, stands out as one of the predominantly agrarian states in the country. It spans from approximately 21°31′ north to 27°13′14″ north latitude and 85°45′ east to 89°53′ east longitude (Fig. 2). The state consists of 19 districts. District Kolkata has been excluded from the study because it is entirely urban in nature. In 2001–2002, total net crop area was recorded at 5521.58 thousand hectares, and the gross crop area was 9778.81thousand hectares, while in 2015–2016, the net crop area was reduced to 5243.39 thousand hectares, and the gross crop area increased to 9881.35 thousand hectares. The 2011 population enumeration for West Bengal reveals a total population of 91,276,115 individuals, with a corresponding population density of 1029 persons per square kilometre (Census of India, 2011). Among the total population, 68.12% are from rural areas and 44.04% are directly engaged in primary activities, mostly agriculture. The average land holding size is 0.77 hectares per holding (Biswas, 2022).

Fig. 2

Location map

West Bengal is classified into six agro-climatic regions (Mithiya et al., 2018) as.

• 1. Coastal Saline Zone: covering South 24 Parganas district.

• 2. Gangetic Alluvial Zone: covering Bardhhaman, Hugli, Howrah, Murshidabad, Nadia, North 24 Parganas.

• 3. Northern Hill Zone: covering Darjeeling.

• 4. Terai Testa Alluvial Zone: Covering Cooch Behar, Jalpaiguri, Uttar Dinajpur.

• 5. Undulating Red and laterite Zone: Bankura, Birbhum, Purulia, West Medinipur, East Medinipur.

• 6. Vindyan Alluvial Zone: Dakshin Dinajpur, Maldah.

Table 2 presents necessary details regarding the study area.

Table 2 Study area at a glance

4.2 Selection of indicators

In this study, the indicators that will be used to measure the SALSI were chosen to correspond to previously published research. This study includes 36 crucial indicators under four selected components: infrastructure sufficiency, ecological security, social equity and economic efficiency. Table 3 provides information on the indicators, their connection to SALSI and the associated references.

Table 3 Description of the 36 indicators relating to the sustainable agriculture livelihood security index

Ecological resources have been crucial to human survival from prehistoric times to the present day (Pani & Mishra, 2022). Therefore, preserving the earth’s natural resources is a realistic strategy for achieving SALSI. Crop intensity, population density, livestock density, percentage of forest area, elevation and population growth rate are used as indicators of ecological security in this analysis. West Bengal is an agriculture-based state in India. However, around 44.03% of the workforce directly depends on agriculture. This is indicative of West Bengal’s heavy reliance on the agricultural sector. Intensity of crop production is a useful measure of ecological sustainability (Pani & Mishra, 2022). The density of a region’s population is also an important predictor of ecological sustainability. The measure for the sustainable agriculture livelihood security index is negatively linked to population density. Massive population pressure may impede sustainable development by exerting more strain on fragile landscapes, forests and public security (Pani & Mishra, 2022). Forest provide food, timber, good environmental condition for agriculture and offer livelihoods to millions of people (Pani & Mishra, 2022). Livestock plays a crucial role in West Bengal’s agricultural sector. So, the importance of livestock density within SALSI cannot be understated. Higher livestock density may help to boost the agricultural system. Elevation has a negative association with SALSI. Higher elevation indicates lower SALSI.

The optimum utilization of capital, humans and natural resources is evaluated by an economic efficiency system. It ensures the current necessities of societal growth for long-term survival. The variable of EEI are total food grain yield, availability of irrigated area, net sown land availability, per capita food grain production, the proportion of cultivator, concentration of agricultural labourers, the net area available for effective pisciculture, workforce participation rate, percentage of main workers to total workers, agricultural efficiency index, crop diversification index. Continuous arable land scarcity and increasing population pressure are the coexisting characteristics of West Bengal’s economy. From 2001–2002 to 2015–2016, total net crop areas declined from 5521.58 thousand hectares to 5243.39 thousand hectares in West Bengal.

In contrast, during the period spanning from 2001 to 2011, there was a notable growth of 13.84% in the population. In this context, crop diversification through prolonging irrigation systems, improving agricultural efficiency, increasing food grain yield, and better availability of sown area is viable. Gibbs & Martin, 1962 was adopted to measure crop diversification in this study. To calculate agriculture efficiency, Bhatia, 1967 was adopted. The availability of main workers, proportion of cultivators and proportion of agricultural labourers are the essential indicators that reflect the basic socio-economic structure and living pattern in a particular district.

The infrastructure sufficiency index is another pillar of SALSI. The indicators of ISI are road density, population served per bank, total number of banks per 100,000 population, number of cooperative societies per 100,000 population, electrified village, number of the primary health centre, medical institutions per 1000 population, primary school per sq. km., number of mouja having safe drinking water facility, number of tractor per 1000 hectare GCA. Road density is one of the important indicators ensuring a region’s infrastructure sufficiency. The variable related to banking service availability and accessibility exhibits the financial infrastructure. The indicators associated with cooperative societies, electrified village, safe drinking water facility and the availability of tractors reflect the infrastructure sufficiency of a district and are positively associated with SALSI. Further, the amount primary health centres and medical institutions based on population share reveal the medical infrastructure sufficiency of a district.

Equity in society assists in reducing social absorption and ensures that resources are allocated equitably, and both of which are crucial for SALSI (Pani & Mishra, 2022). Here, the indicators, social equity index (SEI), include educational status, land availability, proportion of female literates, sex ratio, availability of improved sanitation facility, Scheduled Tribe literacy rate, mobile facility available at the house, household expending on clean fuel for cooking, and availability family welfare centre. The high sex ratio and female literacy rate indicate towards the progressive development in terms of the social, economic and political involvement of females in a region. Furthermore, it is important to delve deeper into the significance of these selected indicators in the context of combating social exploitation and their role in reflecting social equity at the household level. For example, access to clean and safe sanitation facilities reduces the risk of diseases, particularly among vulnerable populations. Lack of access to such facilities can lead to health disparities, with marginalized groups being disproportionately affected. When literacy rates are high, it often indicates that individuals have had the opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills, which can empower them to make informed decisions, access better job opportunities and participate more actively in societal affairs. Also, uneven land distribution can lead to disparities in wealth and opportunities, potentially perpetuating social exploitation. These indicators mutually suggest a comprehensive representation of social equity at the district scale.

4.3 Sources of data

This research was conducted based on a selection of relevant sources of secondary data. The data sources include Primary Census abstract (2011), State statistical handbook (2014), Statistical Abstract (West Bengal, 2015), West Bengal forest survey, India, 2017. Generally, different socio-economic attributes and agricultural characteristics of West Bengal at district level have been collected from the above-mentioned sources. Furthermore, to prepare the location map, the elevation was calculated from Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) data using the GIS environment (Acquisition date: 23/09/2014, spatial resolution: 30 m) of 2014, which were collected from the website of USGS (United State Geological Survey).

4.4 Computation of index values

Indicator normalization is crucial for confirming the uniformity and absolute comparability of the selected indicators (Das et al., 2023; Ghosh & Mistri, 2021). Utilizing the functional relationships of the indicators (whether positive or negative), we applied distinct normalization methods, as outlined in Eqs. 1 and 2, to standardize livelihood security indicators for the computation of the Human Development Index (HDI) following the UNDP formula. The resulting standardized values fall within the range of 0–1 (Adu et al., 2018; Das et al., 2023; Ghosh & Mistri, 2021; Hoque et al., 2022).

$$P_{ij} = \frac{{X_{i} - {\text{Min}}_{Xi} }}{{{\text{Max}}_{Xj} - {\text{Min}}_{Xi} }}$$

(1)

$$Q_{ij} \frac{{{\text{Max}}_{Xi} - X_{i} }}{{{\text{Max}}_{Xj} - {\text{Min}}_{Xi} }}$$

(2)

where $P_{ij}$ and $Q_{ij}$ are the standardized value of the indicator ‘i’ for the district ‘j’;${ }X_{i}$ signifies the original value of the ‘i’ indicator for the ‘j’ district. ${\text{Max}}_{Xi}$ and ${\text{Min}}_{Xi}$ are the maximum and minimum values of the corresponding indicators.

Equation 3 is employed to average the standardized sub-components to determine each major component.

$$M_{c} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 1}^{n} SC_{i} }}{n}$$

(3)

where $M_{c}$ single major is dimensions (ESI, EEI and SEI), $SC_{i}$ is the selected variable that produced score for each main dimension. n is the number of variable corresponds to each major dimensions.

$${\text{SALSI}} = \frac{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = 11}^{n} WM_{i} \times M_{c} }}{{\mathop \sum \nolimits_{i = }^{n} w \times M}}$$

(4)

SALSI is the sustainable agriculture livelihood security index. $M_{c}$ is the each of main dimension, $WM_{i}$ is the weight of each main dimensional index, and n is the number of main dimension under each causative element.

4.5 Principal component analysis (PCA)

PCA is a multivariate statistical technique initially introduced by Pearson (1901) and further refined by Hotelling (1933). This technique is employed to comprehend the variation of a number of multidimensional variables that are interconnected on a block level (Pani & Mishra, 2022). This approach finds extensive application in spatial and longitudinal research (Pani & Mishra, 2022). PCA serves two primary objectives: firstly, it aids in the reduction of data set dimensionality, and secondly, it visually represents data variability through the respective principal components (Pani & Mishra, 2022). PCA transformed the original variables into a new set of principal components (Pani & Mishra, 2022). PCA has plenty of applications in exploratory data analysis (De & Das, 2021).

Before performing PCA, ‘Kaiser–Meyer–Oklin (KMO)’ assessment is done to examine the sampling adequacy of employed indicators. The KMO statistics demonstrate how strongly the factors are related (Pani & Mishra, 2022). The KMO value falls within the range of 0–1. Previous studies suggest that data are considered appropriate for PCA when the KMO value equals or exceeds 0.60, as demonstrated by De and Das (2021) and Pani and Mishra (2022).

5 Results

West Bengal places a significant emphasis on its agricultural industry. In rural areas, it is responsible for the employment of around 44.03% of the overall workforce (Census of India, 2011). 82.81% of farmers belong to a marginal farming category. The SLSI methodology identifies the priorities and helps construct appropriate policies at the district level. To measure the ESI, EEI, ISI, SEI and composite SALSI, all indicators are first normalized through the min–max method. Then, we conducted PCA and applied varimax rotation with Kiser normalization to assess the key contributing factors for each index. It is important to note that Bartlett’s sphericity test yielded statistically significant results in all instances. For this study, we are focusing on indicators with factor loadings exceeding 0.100.

5.1 Ecological security index

Table 4 indicates that wide inter-district spatial variation has been observed among the ecological security index. This ranges from a low level of 0.38 in Purulia to a high in Hooghly (0.73) district with an average value of 0.57. A high concentration of ecological security index (> 0.65) during 2013–2014 has been found in Coochbehar from north Bengal and Hooghly, Paschim Medinipur and Nadia from south Bengal (Fig. 3). North 24 Parganas, Dakshin Dinajpur and Bardhaman were found to have moderate ecological security status (Fig. 3). Four districts, i.e., Darjeeling, Uttar Dinajpur, Maldah and Jalpaiguri, from north Bengal and five adjacent districts, i.e., Bankura, Birbhum, Howrah, Purba Medinipur and Murshidabad from south Bengal, experienced a low ecological security index (Fig. 2). Very low (< 0.49) ecological security status was observed in two districts, that is, Purulia and south 24 Parganas (Fig. 3). Table 5 exhibits the six ecological security measures’ estimated principal components and rotated component matrix. The initial two components account for 68.96% of the overall variance in ecological security. A total of 47.14% of the variance can be attributed to PC1, while 21.82% can be attributed to PC2. It is found that PC1 is primarily associated with the proportion of forest area (−0.847), elevation (0.843), livestock density (0.799) and cropping intensity (0.717). PC2 is highly correlated with population growth rate (0.817) and population density (−0.642).

Table 4 Scores and ranking of ecological security index (ESI), economic efficiency index (EEI), social equity index (SEI) and agricultural sustainable livelihood security index (ASLSI)

Fig. 3

Ecological security index

Table 5 Results of principal component analysis for the six ecological security indicators

5.2 Economic efficiency index

The study revealed that the economic efficiency index in West Bengal ranged from the lowest level of 0.13 in Darjeeling to a high of 0.71 in Dakshin Dinajpur, with an average value of 0.52 (Table 4). During 2013–2014, three districts of Birbhum, Bardhaman and Dakshin Dinajpur were found to have high economic efficiency status (> 0.60). Eight districts of Bankura, Hooghly, Paschim Medinipur, Murshidabad, Nadia, Coochbehar, Uttar Dinajpur and Maldah were found to have moderate economic efficiency ranks. Four districts, i.e., North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas, Purba Medinipur and Purulia, were found to have low economic efficiency status (Fig. 4). Very low economic efficiency status (< 0.40) was recorded in Howrah, Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri (Fig. 4). Table 6 indicates the computed principal component and rotation component matrix for the final eleven economic efficiency indicators. The first three principal components of economic efficiency explain 80.03% variation of data, where the first principal component (PC1) accounts for 34.33%, PC2 explain 30.61% and PC3 explain 15.09% of the total variance. PC1 has a high correlation with the proportion of agricultural labourers to the total worker (0.929), per capita food grain production (0.883), percentage of irrigated area to total NCA (0.760), percentage of main workers to total workers (−0.731) and workforce participation rate (0.664). PC2 is highly associated with crop diversification index (0.860), agriculture efficiency index (0.844), percentage of net sown area to total area (0.817) and total food grain yield (0.788). PC3 is moderately correlated with the proportion of cultivators to the total worker (0.686) and net area available for effective pisciculture (−0.658).

Fig. 4

Economic efficiency index

Table 6 Results of principal component analysis for the eleven economic efficiency indicators

5.3 Infrastructure sufficiency

Table 4 indicates that wide inter-district spatial variation has been observed among the infrastructure sufficiency index. It ranged from the lowest level of 0.14 in Jalpaiguri to as high as 0.68 in Paschim Medinipur, with an average value of 0.36 (Table 4). During 2013–2014, two districts of Bardhaman and Paschim Medinipur were found to have high infrastructure sufficiency status (Table 4 and Fig. 5). Four districts, i.e., Purba Medinipur, Hooghly, Birbhum and Bankura, were found to have moderate infrastructure sufficiency status (Fig. 5). Nine districts, i.e., North 24 Parganas, South 24 Parganas, Coochbehar, Darjeeling, Dakshin Dinajpur, Howrah, Murshidabad, Nadia and Purulia, were found to have low infrastructure sufficiency status (Fig. 5). Very low infrastructure sufficiency status (< 0.28) was recorded in three districts, i.e. Maldah, Jalpaiguri and Uttar Dinajpur. Table 7 shows the factor loading of the associated ten indicators for infrastructure sufficiency. The first two main components take up a large portion of 51.35% of the total variance in the data, while the first four principal components explain 81.938% of the total variance. PC3 holds 17.33% and PC4 explains a 13.25% variation in the data. PC1 is highly associated with no. of mouja having a safe drinking water facility (0.91), electrified village (0.905), total no. of banks per one lakh population (0.757), and primary school per sq. km. (0.749). PC2 is highly correlated with medical institution per 1000 population, no. of cooperative society per one lakh population, no. of tractor per 1000 hectare gross crop area. PC3 is highly associated with population served per bank (0.91) and no. of primary health care centres (0.646). Road density (0.953) correlates highly with the fourth principal component (PC4).

Fig. 5

Infrastructure sufficiency index

Table 7 Results of principal component analysis for the ten infrastructure sufficiency indicators

5.4 Social equity index

Inter-district geographical variance has been identified in the social equity index (Table 4 and Fig. 6). This variation can vary from a low level of 0.14 in Uttar Dinajpur to as high as 0.82 in Darjeeling, with a value of 0.46 as an average. A high concentration of social equity index (> 0.65) during 2013–2014 has been found in three districts, i.e., North 24 Parganas, Darjeeling and Howrah. Three districts, i.e., Hooghly, South 24 Parganas and Purba Medinipur, were found to have moderate social equity status (Fig. 6). Six districts, i.e., Bardhaman, Nadia, Paschim Medinipur, Jalpaiguri, Dakshin Dinajpur and Coochbehar, found low social equity status (Fig. 6). Very low social equity status (< 0.35) was recorded in Purulia, Murshidabad, Birbhum, Bankura, Uttar Dinajpur and Maldah (Fig. 5). Table 8 presents the results of an examination of the key components for nine manifestations of representative social equity. It is evident from this that the first two principal components of the social equity index explain 79.0% of the total variance observed within the data. PC1 holds 63.42%, and PC2 accounts for a 15.59% variation of the data. PC1 is primarily correlated with the mobile facility in the household (0.944), female literacy rate (0.908), percentage of households with improved sanitation facility (0.870), family welfare centre (0.844), S.T. literacy rate (0.826), household use clean fuel for cooking (0.798), literacy rate (0.788) and per capita land availability (-0.762). On the other hand, the sex ratio (0.935) is highly correlated to the second principal component (PC2).

Fig. 6

Social equity index

Table 8 Results of principal component analysis for the nine social equity indicators

5.5 Sustainable agricultural livelihood security index

Table 4 indicates that wide inter-district spatial variation has been observed among the sustainable agricultural livelihood security index. It ranged from the lowest level of 0.35 in Jalpaiguri to as high as 0.60 in Paschim Medinipur, with an average value of 0.47 (Table 4). During 2013–2014, six districts of North 24 Parganas, Birbhum, Uttar Dinajpur, Purba Medinipur, Paschim Medinipur and Bardhaman, were found to have high sustainable livelihood security status (Table 4 and Fig. 7). Four districts, i.e., Bankura, Coochbehar, Dakshin Dinajpur and Nadia, were found to have moderate SALSI status (Fig. 7). Five districts, i.e., South 24 Parganas, Darjeeling, Howrah, Maldah and Murshidabad, were found to have low SALSI status (Fig. 7). Very low SALSI (< 0.40) status was recorded in three districts, i.e., Purulia, Jalpaiguri and Uttar Dinajpur (Fig. 7). Table 9 shows the factor loading of the associated 36 indicators for SALSI. The first three PC account for a sizable share (56.38%) of the total variation in the original data set, while the first eight PC explain 91.67 per cent of the variance. The analysis reveals strong associations between PC1 and various factors. PC1 is highly positively interconnected with the presence of Family Welfare Centres (0.90) and the availability of mobile facilities in households (0.862). Conversely, it exhibits a negative association with per capita land availability (−0.88), the proportion of cultivators among total workers (−0.878), per capita food grain production (−0.817), the proportion of agricultural labourers among total workers (−0.763), population density (−0.746) and the percentage of households using clean fuel for cooking (−0.714). Additionally, PC1 is positively linked with the availability of medical institutions (0.641), female literacy rate (0.628) and the percentage of households with improved sanitation facilities (0.617). PC2 has a high correlation with Crop diversification Index (0.916), Cropping intensity (0.864), Agriculture efficiency index (0.796), elevation (0.782), percentage of net sown area to total area (0.753), Livestock Density (0.742), the proportion of forest area (−0.597), road density (0.535), percentage of main workers to total workers (0.597). PC3 is found to have a high correlation with the No. of mouja having a safe drinking water facility (0.875), electrified village (0.869), percentage of irrigated area to total NCA (0.733), primary school per sq. Km. (0.719), total no. of banks per one lakh population (0.644), no. of primary health care centre (0.633) and workforce participation rate (0.555). PC4 is highly associated with population growth rate (0.901), literacy rate (0.666) and S.T. literacy rate (0.551). The fifth principal component (PC5) is highly correlated with the population served per bank (0.883) and the net area available for effective pisciculture (0.807). PC6 is highly associated with no. of tractors per 1000 ha. gross crop area (0.902) and total food grain yield (0.685). No. of cooperative society per one lakh, the population indicator (0.797), is highly correlated to the seventh principal component (PC7). The sex ratio (0.863) is highly associated with the eighth principal component (PC8).

Fig. 7

Sustainable agricultural livelihood security index

Table 9 Result of principal component analysis for the 36 indicators relating to sustainable agricultural livelihood security indicators

5.6 Hypotheses testing

It is found from the Table 10 that the correlation coefficient between ESI and sustainable agriculture livelihood security index (SALSI) is 0.712 and p value for 2 tailed test of significance is 0.001 (p < 0.01). Based on these findings, we can confidently assert the presence of a robust positive correlation between ESI and SALSI, with statistical significance at the 0.01 significance level. Therefore, this research hypothesis (H1) is accepted.

Table 10 Hypotheses testing

The correlation coefficient between EEI and SALSI is 0.439, and the p-value for a two-tailed test of significance is 0.069, indicating that there is a statistically significant correlation between these variables at a significance level of 0.1. Based on the findings of our study, it is evident that there exists a noteworthy and statistically significant moderate positive correlation between economic efficiency and sustainable agriculture livelihood security. Consequently, we can confidently assert that our research hypothesis (H2), which posits a positive relationship between EEI and SALSI, is substantiated and accepted. This compelling correlation underscores the importance of economic efficiency in influencing and contributing to overall agriculture livelihood security towards sustainable living among agrarian community.

It is found from Table 10 that correlation between infrastructure sufficiency index (ISI) and sustainable agriculture livelihood security index (SALSI) is found 0.793 and p value for 2 tailed test of significance is 0.000 (p < 0.01). Based on the findings of this study, we can definitely emphasize that there exists a robust and noteworthy positive correlation between the Infrastructure Sufficiency Index (ISI) and the Sustainable Agriculture Livelihood Security Index (SALSI). Moreover, the statistical significance of this correlation, which was determined at the notably low significance level of 0.01, leads us to the conclusion that we must accept the hypothesis (H3). This compelling evidence suggests that improvements in infrastructure sufficiency are closely linked to enhancements in sustainable agricultural livelihood security. This observation underscores the importance of investing in and prioritizing infrastructure development to bolster the resilience and well-being of agricultural communities, ultimately contributing to sustainable agricultural practices and livelihoods.

Correlation between social equity index (SEI) and sustainable agriculture livelihood security index (SALSI) is found 0.351 and p value for 2 tailed test of significance is 0.153. From this result, we conclude that there is low positive correlation exist between SEI and SALSI, and this correlation is not statistically significant. Therefore, this research hypothesis (H4) is not significant, and this research hypothesis cannot be accepted.

5.7 Seasonal crop calendar

A crop calendar is a timetable that provides monthly information on land preparation, sowing, growing, and harvesting of many crops with the climate condition of a particular agro-ecological region in advance (Banerjee & Dawn, 2020; Blackmore et al., 2021). It also helps to identify the cropping model of an area in a very comprehensive manner (Banerjee & Dawn, 2020). It is crucial in developing crop productivity, distribution of labour, application of manure in the agricultural field, and all-round development of the agronomy of a specific region (Banerjee & Dawn, 2020). It assists the economist and regional planner formulates appropriate agricultural land-use planning.

Figure 8 shows different planting seasons of major crops in West Bengal. West Bengal’s agricultural landscape is a complex mosaic of crops and planting schedules, influenced by a multitude of factors. It is challenging to offer a one-size-fits-all planting season standard for various crops in the diverse agricultural landscape of West Bengal. Moreover, the cultivation practices in West Bengal have evolved over the years, with many farmers adopting modern agricultural techniques and relying on research-driven insights to optimize their crop yields. This has led to a diversification of planting seasons for some crops, as farmers experiment with new varieties and hybrid cultivars. However, the crop calendar provides a typical cultivation cycle of major crops in West Bengal based on literature and participant observation. The findings indicate that the majority of cultivation and harvesting activities occur over a pair of distinct seasons known as Rabi (November to May) and Kharif (June to October). Mentioning that the precise timing of crop cultivation in West Bengal is strongly influenced by the local microclimate is crucial, given the considerable variations that can be observed across different regions within the state. Some districts may follow the basic sown and harvest period in Fig. 8. In other districts, there have a chance to plant and harvest certain crops earlier or later. Most crops are harvested between February and June, as depicted in Fig. 8. Climate variability can be influenced by the sowing and harvesting date in West Bengal.

Fig. 8

Basic crop calendar: land preparation, sowing, growing and harvesting seasons for major traditional crops in the West Bengal

6 Discussion

According to Grieger et al. (2022), the successful advancement of cutting-edge technologies intended for integration into sustainable agricultural systems is contingent upon active involvement and collaboration with stakeholders and the community. The advantages of involving stakeholders in the progress of new technologies encompass meeting the needs of stakeholders and community members, incorporating diverse perspectives, promoting transparency, facilitating collaborative knowledge generation and its resulting outcomes, expediting technology adoption and supporting the creation of more sustainable agro-food technology solutions (Beland Lindahl et al., 2016; Grieger et al., 2022; Kliskey et al., 2021). Sustainability recording serves as a comprehensive documentation of a community’s activities and outcomes with the primary aim of illustrating the intricate and dynamic interconnection between the organization and its diverse stakeholder groups. According to the Stanford Research Institute in 1963, stakeholders are “those groups without whose support the organization would cease to exist” (Freeman & McVea, 2005). A major theme of stakeholder theory is stakeholder participation. The organizational activities may deal with management accounting, human resource management, customer service and public relations, depending on the nature and saliency of the stakeholders (Bellantuono et al., 2016). Utilizing stakeholder engagement as a tool to steer technology innovation processes, technology assessment stands out as an approach that can provide valuable insights to shape and prioritize technology policies and innovation strategies within a broader framework (Ely et al., 2014). Stakeholder engagement in agro-food systems needs to be customized to consider these contextual circumstances because food and agriculture systems are frequently context-based, with local actors and situations frequently playing key roles (Kliskey et al., 2021). This is due to the enormous diversity and complexity of farming techniques uncovered through agricultural research on farming systems. As a result, numerous reforms in agrarian systems have focused on farmers’ involvement in agricultural research, where they frequently play crucial roles in carrying out the study (Chambers, 1994; Grieger et al., 2022).

Any economy’s progress depends significantly on the transition to the bio-economy (Wang et al., 2022). Agriculture, agribusiness, forestry and other industries that produce and use bio-based raw materials are all regarded to be growing industries, and the shift to a bio-economy is seen as a critical element in their development (Wang et al., 2022). The nation’s ambitions and bio-economy objectives include economic growth, employment, energy and food security, reducing fossil fuel use, rural development and adaptation and climate change mitigation (Bracco et al., 2018). Since it provides the bulk of the biomass used as a raw material for the creation of bio-products, agriculture is one of the sectors significantly boosting the development of the bio-economy (Nowak et al., 2021). Agriculture, the agro bio-economy complex and external processes are all critical for rural communities’ socio-economic and cultural development (Wang et al., 2022). Agriculture serves as both a primary supplier and beneficiary of the bio-economy. On the one hand, it supplies the essential biomass required for producing a wide array of bio-products, including biofuels, bio-based materials and bio-chemicals. This dependence on agricultural biomass highlights the economic interdependence between the bio-economy and the farm sector. The shift to a bio-economy for agriculture and agribusiness, according to many authors’ findings, is crucial for humanity’s long-term survival on a worldwide scale (Saardchom, 2017; São Simão, 2019).

Furthermore, this synergy between agriculture and the bio-economy substantially benefits agricultural livelihoods and sustainability. Using agricultural residues, crop waste and dedicated energy crops for bio-product manufacturing adds value to agricultural production and fosters resource efficiency. The symbiotic interaction between agriculture and the bio-economy essentially demonstrates the potential for a more resilient and sustainable agricultural sector.

An index of sustainable livelihood security is an effective instrument that helps identify the regions that require immediate attention but also helps to visualize the key themes wherein the effort may be required to achieve livelihood security. This index can be used to monitor and control the progress made towards achieving sustainable livelihood stability (Sajjad et al., 2014; Singh & Hiremath, 2010). It also helps to prioritize the programs and activities relevant to each region for agriculture sustainability (Sajjad et al., 2014). Regarding the environment and economy, agriculture is crucial to developing and expanding an agricultural state like West Bengal. Due to the interdependence of the system’s biological, physical and human components, agriculture systems are more complex (Kalinowska et al., 2022; Sridhara et al., 2022). This study developed a sustainable agriculture livelihood security index among the agricultural community for rural development in West Bengal India. This is the first effort to include ecological, economic, infrastructural and social components into the sustainable livelihood security index method to evaluate the way forward for agrarian communities to achieve their sustainable growth and rural development. To identify appropriate rural development strategies for a secure and sustainable lifestyle for the rural people in West Bengal, the present analysis illuminates the challenges and opportunities at the district level.

The current study uses the districts-wise index value of the various SALSI components to identify the inter-district uneven development structure. SALSI in West Bengal exhibits spatial variability between districts. The study’s identification of spatial variability in SALSI components is crucial for understanding the unequal development structure within West Bengal. It implies that not all districts are equally positioned to provide sustainable agricultural livelihoods to their rural populations. Paschim Medinipur is currently in the best position to offer its rural agrarian people the chance for a sustainable agricultural life. It follows Hooghly, Bardhaman, Purba Medinipur, North 24 Parganas and Birbhum, having the rank of second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth position, respectively. These districts were all classified as advanced districts with the best conditions for agriculture sustainability because their SALSI scores were more than 0.50. On the other hand, Jalpaiguri has a SALSI of 0.35 and is the district with the worst performance in agriculture sustainability. In this perspective, Uttar Dinajpur and Purulia’s rankings of 17th and 16th, respectively reveal a worrying condition. For socio-economic development and ecological restoration, all of these districts demand immediate attention. Ecological improvement needs to be given a higher priority in the South 24 Parganas and Purulia districts. To improve the ecological security situation in these districts, afforestation, crop intensity improvement, productivity improvement and livestock development should be encouraged. The ecological security index is positively and significantly associated with the Sustainable agricultural livelihood security index. This finding is supported by some recent studies reported in West Bengal (Garai et al., 2019; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b), Gujrat (Singh & Hiremath, 2010) and in Odisha (Pani & Mishra, 2022). In Darjeeling, Howrah and Jalpaiguri, economic efficiency is accorded higher priority for economic development. In these priority districts, attempts should be necessary to provide subsidies in agricultural inputs in terms of HYV seeds, fertilizer, irrigation systems and pesticides. The economic efficiency index is significantly related to the sustainable agricultural livelihood security index (Table 10). This finding aligns with the study conducted in south and East Asia (Garai et al., 2019; Pani & Mishra, 2022; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b; Singh & Hiremath, 2010). Infrastructure development is a necessary criterion for rural development. In this study, Uttar Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri and Maldah, infrastructure sufficiency is accorded higher priority for infrastructure development. To enhance infrastructure sufficiency in rural development, road connectivity, electric facilities, health care facilities, drinking water facilities, medical institutions and increased primary schools, mechanization in agriculture sector especially increase the number of tractor use per 1000 hectare gross crop area should be accorded higher priority. The infrastructure sufficiency index is positively and significantly related to the Sustainable agricultural livelihood security index (Table 10). This finding is supported by one study conducted in West Bengal (Garai et al., 2019). Social equity enhancement is an integral part of rural development. In this state, Uttar Dinajpur, Maldah, Murshidabad, Birbhum, Purulia and Bankura are the higher priority districts for social equity (Table 3 and Fig. 5). Better education, female literacy rate improvement, per capita land availability, sanitation facility, family welfare centre and improved ST literacy rate should be accorded higher priority for enhancing social equity. The social equity index is positively associated with sustainable agricultural livelihood security index. The investigations carried out in south and East Asia (Garai et al., 2019; Pani & Mishra, 2022; Roy et al., 2023a, 2023b; Singh & Hiremath, 2010) are in agreement with this finding.

So, policymakers in West Bengal should consider focusing their efforts on districts that rank lower in SALSI. Identifying the specific challenges and constraints faced by these districts could inform targeted interventions to improve sustainable agricultural practices and livelihoods. With a higher aim to accelerate the expansion of the agricultural sector, inter-district differences in terms of per capita income can be reduced (Pani & Mishra, 2022). Transition in cropping pattern specially for intensive subsistence to high-value cash crops, technological advancement, related to the application of HYV seeds, improved in irrigation system, application of smart irrigation techniques are necessary for improving the productivity, meeting the demand of food and nutrition security and to achieve rural development. However, balanced development is needed among the economy, productivity gains and natural resource management for sustainable livelihood security achievement (Sridhara et al., 2022). By implementing the appropriate policies, we may achieve this balanced, sustainable development. For the western semiarid and northern hilly regions, for instance, attention needs to be placed on rainwater collecting, drip irrigation systems, sprinkle irrigation systems and subsurface irrigation systems to manage the restricted irrigation facility. To maintain sustainability, less water-consuming high-value crops should be included in cropping patterns in the dry region. For the coastal region, especially in the Indian Sundarban delta region, climate-smart salt-resistant crops should be promoted for better yield.

This study has some limitations, such as the sparse use of indicators. Future studies can include other suitable indicators. To compare the secondary results with actual circumstances at the household level, it may be possible to conduct an empirical investigation based on an extensive survey and employ a mixed-method approach. Despite these limitations, this study has a significant contribution. It is the first attempt to evaluate West Bengal’s sustainable agriculture livelihood security index among the agrarian community and address the integrated agricultural system (crop, livestock and fishery). By building an integrated sustainable agricultural livelihood security index (ISALSI), which includes 36 indicators under ecological, economic, infrastructure and social equity dimensions at the district level, this study made a reasonable effort to investigate the comparable sustainable livelihood security performance of the districts of West Bengal. The objective was to determine which areas should receive priority attention for the agriculture sector’s sustainable development.

7 Conclusion and policy recommendation

In conclusion, the Sustainable Agricultural Livelihood Security Index (SALSI) has proven to be an invaluable tool for comprehensively assessing the socio-economic and environmental development of agrarian communities. It combines four critical components: ecological security index, economic efficiency index, infrastructure sufficiency index and social equity index. The main purpose of this study is assessing the degree of livelihood sustainability in the districts of West Bengal through the utilization of a comprehensive set of 36 indicators. The utilization of principal component analysis (PCA) has been employed to unveil the weights of indicators and identify factor components that exert a substantial influence on SALSI. Our study demonstrated the effectiveness of SALSI as a policy instrument, shedding light on the key determinants of long-term agricultural sustainability across 19 districts in West Bengal, India. We observed distinct inter-district disparities in agriculture sustainability and its constituent components (ESI, EEI, ISI and SEI).

The SALSI approach serves as a vital resource for identifying priority districts requiring immediate attention and areas where concentrated efforts can promote sustainable livelihoods. It is instrumental in offering a holistic perspective on the socio-economic and environmental development of the region. To achieve global sustainable development, it is crucial to prioritize underrepresented rural areas, especially those with limited statistical data. Enhancing the farming system and promoting rural development hinge on educating cultivators in adopting improved farming techniques through capacity-building programs, thus optimizing the utilization of natural resources and increasing enterprise productivity. The districts of Uttar Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri and Purulia have been identified as facing significant challenges in achieving sustainable agricultural development. This challenge arises primarily due to the predominant presence of scheduled tribe populations in these areas. In these regions, scheduled tribes constitute a significant portion of the population, and their socio-economic status and access to resources often lag behind the rest of the population. This demographic factor plays a crucial role in shaping the agricultural landscape, as it directly impacts land ownership, access to modern agricultural practices, and the overall development of the agricultural sector. South 24 Parganas and Purulia districts need ecological restoration. In the regions of Darjeeling, Howrah and Jalpaiguri, the paramount concern should be enhancing economic efficiency as a driving force for development. These areas possess significant economic potential, and maximizing efficiency in resource allocation and productivity is pivotal to harnessing their economic prowess effectively. Investment in sectors that foster economic growth and job creation should be a top priority to unlock the latent economic opportunities within these regions. In contrast, Uttar Dinajpur, Jalpaiguri and Maldah face a more pressing need for bolstering infrastructure development. In these areas, the key to sustainable progress lies in improving transportation networks, utilities and connectivity. Adequate infrastructure forms the backbone for economic growth, attracting investments and facilitating trade. Therefore, channelling resources into infrastructure projects and ensuring their sufficiency is essential to bridge the development gap. Meanwhile, in Bankura, Birbhum, Uttar Dinajpur, Maldah, Murshidabad and Purulia, the focus should be on advancing social equity. These regions often grapple with disparities in access to education, healthcare and basic services. Prioritizing social equity implies a commitment to addressing these disparities and ensuring that all residents have equal access to opportunities and essential services. This involves initiatives aimed at improving education, healthcare and social welfare programs to uplift the marginalized and vulnerable segments of society. The SALSI approach can measure agriculture sustainability and construct a holistic aspect of this region’s environmental and socio-economic development. To achieve global sustainable development, we should recognize and pay attention to those rural areas that have not received adequate attention in the past. Remote areas, especially rural ethnic minority areas, suffer from a lack of actual statistical data, making it hard to carry out a proper assessment. To enhance the farming system and for rural development, cultivators must be educated about the adoption of improved farm techniques through capacity-building programmes which enhance the productivity of natural resources and also increase the productivity of enterprises. To improve the rural livelihood security in West Bengal, policy makers should give attention towards the rural employment opportunity, rural infrastructure development and need to critically review the sustainability parameters of agriculture livelihood security. The government policy should be focused on to increase the employment opportunity of land less, small and marginal farmers which will enhance the standard of living, income level and their livelihood security in the rural areas. Government should make investment on the backward region and employment-rich area such as poverty reduction, rural infrastructure development, integrated farming, dairy sector and natural resource conservation, which will help in rural development and livelihood security enhancement in the rural West Bengal.

The findings indicate that in the pursuit of achieving sustainable livelihoods and ensuring an equitable distribution of rural development benefits, it is imperative to direct targeted policy interventions towards districts that are experiencing developmental disparities. In the context of rural agrarian livelihood development, it is often observed that not all districts progress at the same pace or to the same extent. Disparities in infrastructure, access to basic services, economic opportunities and social well-being can be pronounced between different districts within a region or country. Addressing these disparities and promoting balanced development is a fundamental goal of policymakers. Moreover, ensuring an equitable distribution of rural development benefits means that policies should aim to reduce disparities and uplift marginalized communities within these districts.

For enhancing rural livelihood security in West Bengal, policymakers must concentrate on rural employment opportunities, infrastructure development and a critical review of the sustainability parameters. Government policies should focus on increasing employment prospects for landless, small and marginal farmers, thereby elevating their living standards and livelihood security. Investments in backward regions and employment-rich areas, such as poverty reduction, rural infrastructure development, integrated farming, the dairy sector and natural resource conservation are imperative for rural development and livelihood security enhancement. Our findings underscore the need for targeted policy interventions in districts experiencing developmental disparities. Not all districts progress uniformly, and inequalities in infrastructure, access to basic services, economic opportunities, and social well-being can be significant. To address these disparities and ensure equitable distribution of rural development benefits, policies should aim at reducing disparities and uplifting marginalized communities. This may involve implementing social safety nets, providing training and skill development programs, and fostering inclusive economic growth opportunities.

In light of our results and findings, we recommend the following policy measures to enhance SALSI and achieve rural development in West Bengal:

• (a) To improve ecological security, prioritize districts should promote agroforestry, afforestation and plantation, along with enhancing livestock development, cropping intensity, wetland conservation and rainwater harvesting.

• (b) To increase economic efficiency, focus on agricultural productivity enhancement, expanding the net sown area, promoting pisciculture and irrigation, increasing per capita food grain production, generating rural employment opportunities and encouraging crop diversification.

• (c) To improve infrastructure sufficiency, expedite infrastructure development, enhance road connectivity and electrification systems, expand banking and healthcare facilities in priority districts lagging behind.

• (d) To enhance social equity, prioritize initiatives that improve literacy rates, especially among scheduled tribes, promote sanitation facilities, provide clean cooking fuel and increase family welfare centres in identified lagging districts.

• (e) For rural development and livelihood sustainability, West Bengal government should emphasize schemes like “MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act)” for increased employment opportunities in rural areas, “Anandadhara” for capacity building, financial inclusion, institutional credit, and skill development, “BGSY (Banglar Gram Sadak Yojana)” for improved road connectivity, “Misson Nirmal Bangla” for sustainable sanitation facilities, and various women and children empowerment programs.

To further advance our understanding of livelihood sustainability, future research should focus on spatiotemporal studies that compare inter-district sustainability levels over different periods. This may involve implementing social safety nets, providing training and skill development programs and fostering inclusive economic growth opportunities. Government and policy makers should focus and formulate proper policy for the backward region. More attention should be made on encouraging community participation and effectively implement the different government scheme for rural development and to enhance the quality of life in the backward region of the state. Additionally, expanding the range of indicators used in assessments and conducting large-scale field surveys will provide a more comprehensive view of the region’s dynamics. Mixed-method approaches that validate secondary results with household-level reality are also essential. Essentially, officials must prioritize the resolution of rural development voids and the encouragement of equitable and harmonious rural livelihoods. Special attention should be given to underdeveloped regions, and focused policy interventions can play a pivotal role in achieving holistic rural development and livelihood security. Future research should continue to expand our understanding of these dynamics and inform effective policy measures.