Sustainable performance of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivation, a livelihood component in Eastern Himalayan Region

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to measure the sustainable performance of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivation, a livelihood component in Eastern Himalayan Region (EHR). The objectives of the study were to examine the role, and the sustainable performance of French bean as a livelihood component in EHR. Altogether, 240 French bean growers had included from two selected districts of Nagaland, EHR. The contribution of French bean cultivation, contribution from other livelihood activities and annual expenditure pattern, 12 parameters under each of 4 indicators (economic, social, human and environmental) of sustainability were assessed. A relationship was established between the sustainability index and the livelihood index. French bean cultivation was ranked as the first, and other livelihood activities in descending order are; livestock-based, crop-based (excluding French bean), Off-farm, and forest-based livelihood. Despite less income from French bean cultivation than other countries, it is contributing about 43.00% to annual income and 73.00% to the yearly expenditure of growers. Thus French bean cultivation is a sustainable livelihood component. The study adopted a framework that can assess the sustainable performance of other crops/activities under similar/different agroecology. The policy process should emphasize higher productivity and more income from it and bring all-round development of the EHR.

KEYWORDS:

• French bean
• livelihood
• sustainable livelihood
• livelihood index
• sustainability index
• framework
• Nagaland
• Eastern Himalayan Region (EHR)

1. Introduction

Sustainable agriculture is a multidimensional and efficient response to global policy question that is how to meet the sustainable development goals (SDGs), like No poverty (SDG 1), Zero Hunger (SDG 2) and climate action (SDG 13). SDG 2 is intended as ‘Zero hunger’ through end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture (www.sdgs.un.org). Sustainable agriculture is a conglomeration of sustainable food, nutrition and livelihood security in the face of climate change and poverty eradication. Livelihood refers to securing the basic necessities, food, water, shelter and clothing of life. A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a living (Chambers & Conway, 1991). In developing countries, mountain and rural people maintain various agriculture and allied livelihood activities to survive and live. Mountain livelihoods are precarious and unsustainable (Wymann von Dach et al., 2017). According to FAO (2019), more than 192 million mountain people in Asia were vulnerable to food insecurity in 2012. Indian mountain communities’ livelihoods are not an exception. For instance, poverty rates are higher in mountain habitations than planes in the Himalayan mountain region (Wymann von Dach et al., 2017).

The Himalayas is extended from 15.95° to 39.31° N and 60.85° to 105.04° E across eight South Asian countries’ territories, namely, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Myanmar (Bajracharya & Shrestha, 2011; Das & Meher, 2019). It covers an area of 7,50,000 sq km with 3000 km in length and 250–300 km in width (Govt. of India, 2006). The Eastern Himalayan Region (EHR) of Himalaya covers an area of 5,24,190 sq km. and extends from 82.70° E to 100.31° E and 21.95° N–29.45° N longitude across six south Asian countries. India covers 52.03% of EHR, and the entire Northeastern region (NER) (including Nagaland) is under EHR (Sharma et al., 2009). People of NER, EHR maintain agriculture and crop-based livelihoods, where the French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a commonly growing crop (Benjongtoshi & Patra, 2021a). But the performance of French bean in the face of sustainability is yet not measured.

Universally accepted consensus about agricultural sustainability denotes meeting the needs of the present without compromising the future needs regarding food, feed and fibre (Hansen, 1996). Assessing the sustainable performance of livelihood components is essential for better policy formulation (Zahm et al., 2019). But in sustainability assessment, climate change and environmental aspects are overemphasized than other aspects. In the climate change scenario, agriculture and allied activities are significant drivers for climate change and global warming through the emission of greenhouse gases and carbonation by disturbing soil surface and exposing the carbon reservoir. Further, agriculture is highly vulnerable to climate change and global warming (IPCC, 2014; Patra & Babu, 2017).

To avoid the trade-off between the role of crops in climate change and global warming versus sustainable and resilient characteristics, income, economic and survival aspects of agriculture-based livelihood activities should also be appreciated. In elaboration, agriculture has mainly three purposes: food security, economic growth, and employment. Since independence (1947), we spent around two and a half decades to achieve partial food secure status and spent another one and a half decades in a real food secure country. Till agriculture and allied sectors are the primary livelihood alternative, and 70% of rural households are primarily continuing agricultural activities for their livelihood (FAO, 2022) and accommodating about 54.6% of the country's workforce (Govt. of India, 2021).

Paradoxically, the share of contribution of agriculture to GDP in 1951 was around 52.00% and declined to below 16.02% in 2017–2018 as reversely from food in-secured to secure country (Govt. of India, 2020). Globally, India has the largest area of rainfed dryland agriculture (Bharucha et al., 2021). About 60.00% of farmers are not interested in continuing agriculture as their occupation if they have alternatives (Govt. of India, 2005), and existing extension systems are inadequate to facilitate widespread adoption of improved technology in agriculture (Brown et al., 2021). On the other hand, Mountain people are in a more difficult situation and suffer from poverty, stresses and hazards, which results in higher food insecurity and outmigration of young men (Wymann von Dach et al., 2017). FAO (2022) anticipated that 50% of Indian rural-agricultural people would convert into non-agricultural and urban people. Various factors are there, and major reasons are less remuneration, laborious, climatic hazards, non-availability of inputs, inadequate extension support, regulated market and higher risk involvement.

Despite tremendous difficulties and constraints, India is the leading producer of various crops and livestock products globally. In 2018, India’s position was 1st in pulses and milk production, 2nd in wheat, rice, groundnut, sugarcane, potato and tea, and 3rd in total cereal, eggs and rapeseed production (Govt. of India, 2020). In respect of pulses, India is the largest producer (25% of the global output), the consumer (27% of world consumption) and the importer (14%) of pulses in the world. At the same time, farmers from Myanmar and Australia are earning 4–5 times more than Indian farmers per unit area (FAO, 2019). Apart from other pulses, India had 80,000–85,000 ha under French bean cultivation in 2016–2017. French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is mainly grown in the hill/mountain region of Himalayan states of India, namely, Jammu and Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and all states (including entire Nagaland) of NER of India (Tiwari & Shivhare, 2017).

But the degree of sustainability of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivation as a livelihood option in EHR does not explore. As a result, the policy process is facing challenges in preparing proper policy documents on implementing sustainable agriculture due to an inadequate database on the sustainable or unsustainable performance of crops and livelihood components. Therefore, the creation of an appropriate tool to measure sustainable performance and an authentic database about sustainable performance of different livelihood components are immensely required.

Concerning the measurement of the sustainable performance of the livelihood component, the availability of tools and techniques is relatively inadequate (Binder & Feola, 2013; Goswami et al., 2017). In this paper, we developed a framework and adopted to assess the sustainable performance of the livelihood component, and French bean was used as a livelihood component. In the framework, we included sustainability indicators, livelihood strategies/components, the contribution of different components to the annual income of the respondents, consistency of the livelihood activity in the system of the respondents, and expenditure pattern of the farmers. Further, we interacted between the sustainability and livelihood indexes in the framework.

The developed framework is unique in measuring livelihood components’ sustainable and unsustainable performance. These can be adopted to measure any component of livelihood irrespective of geographical and agro-ecological situations. It can also be adopted in academic and scientific research on the sustainable performance of crops/livelihood components and their contribution to livelihood. The outcome of the present study may be used in the policy decision process for livelihood and all-round development of the NER, entire EHR and Himalayan region. This paper may also be a unique and vital document for the policy process on French bean and other pulse improvement and promotion/adoption programmes.

This paper has two objectives. The objectives of the study are ‘to explore the role of French bean as a livelihood component in the area under study’, and ‘to examine the sustainable performance of French bean as a livelihood component’. The paper is organized as follows. The methodology, including the study’s framework and hypotheses for testing is presented in the next section. Section 3 presents the results and discussion. The concluding remarks form the last section.

2. Methodology

This section deals with the description of the study area and research methods adopted to complete the research.

2.1. Profile of the study area

The research investigation was purposively conducted in Nagaland (25°6′N–27°4′N, and 93°20′E–95°15′E), NER, under EHR (Figure 1). The State has a geographical area of 16,527 sq km, with a population of 1,980,602, of which 90.00% are from the tribal community (Government of Nagaland, 2012). The density of population is around 120 per sq km. The topography of the State is undulating, full of rugged ranges which breaks into wide chaos of spurs and ridges. The altitudes vary between 194 and 3840 m above the Mean Sea Level (Government of Nagaland, 2017).

Figure 1. Location map of the study

(Source: www.indiagrowing.com/www.brainly.com and authors’ compilation).

The State has 12 administrative districts. About 71.1% of people live in a rural areas, and 55.2% of the total population are farmers (Govt. of Nagaland, 2014). Important crops in the State are rice, maize, pineapple, chilli, banana, orange, French bean, chow chow and kiwi.

Frenchbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivation is more or less common in all the districts of Nagaland. Still, intensive cultivation is continuing in Kiphire, Tuensang, Zunheboto, Mon and part of Phek districts of Nagaland. In these districts of Nagaland, the French bean is one of the major crops and plays a vital role in people's livelihood. For the present study, selection of the districts was made based on the highest area, production and productivity of French bean among the communities. Based on the Govt. of Nagaland (2017), the highest area and production were under Tuensang district, and productivity was from Kiphire districts. Accordingly, these two districts were selected to conduct the present study (Figure 1).

Due to the non-availability of block and village levels, published data on area, production and productivity of French bean, block and district functionaries of the State department of Agriculture were consulted to select the blocks and villages. Based on the recommendation of the functionaries, two blocks from each district (namely, Chessore and Shamator blocks from Tuensang; Pungro and Kiphire blocks from Kiphire) were identified for the present study (Figure 1). From each of those selected blocks, three such villages were again chosen purposively based on functionaries’ recommendations to represent the highest area, production, and productivity. Thus, four blocks and 12 villages were included in the study.

2.2. Selection of respondents

Respondents were selected following the purposive sampling method. Farmers who had more than three years of experience in the cultivation of French bean and were directly involved in agriculture and allied activities were selected as respondents. Based on the pre-decided criteria, 20 French bean growers from each selected village (60 growers from each block and 120 growers from each district) were included as respondents in the study. Therefore, 240 French bean growers were purposively selected as respondents for the study.

2.3. Socio-economic profile of the respondents

All the respondents (N = 240) were from tribal communities and Christian by religion. About 96.25% of male constitutes the study community. Around 47.92% of the respondents belonged to a lower medium (35–51 years) age group, followed by 32.92% in the medium (52–60 years) age group and 17.91% under old (>60 years) age group, respectively. The mean age of the respondents was 52 years, with a standard deviation value of 8.86, and Connor et al. (2021) also reported from Myanmar (another country of EHR) with a similar average age (50 years) of rice farmers. It is also revealed that 82.50% of the respondents were either illiterate or completed up to the primary level of education, and the remaining 17.50% had completed secondary education. The average of education was 1.02 years, and the status of education in the study area was in a pitiful state. About 98.33% of the respondents were engaged in farming as their primary occupation. Remaining, 1.66% of the respondents had a government job as their primary occupation. Also, 1.66% of the respondents were keeping farming as their secondary occupation, 13.33% as artisans, and 2.50% were involved in the business (Benjongtoshi, 2020; Benjongtoshi & Patra, 2021a, 2021b).

A majority (97.08%) of the respondents had a mobile phone, 49.16% had television, and 2.91% had accessed the radio and/or sound system. On the other hand, cent percent of the respondents possessed machete (Dao) and spade. About 78.75% had godown. Also, 58.33% of the study communities had a medium (<2.01–5 ha) size of landholding, 23.75%, 13.75% and remaining, 4.16% of the respondents had large (5 ha), marginal (<1 ha), and small (<1.01–2 ha) landholding, respectively. The respondents’ average size of landholding was 3.73 ha, with a standard deviation of 1.96 (Benjongtoshi, 2020; Benjongtoshi & Patra, 2021a, 2021b).

2.4. Conceptual framework, selection of indicators and issues/parameters

The conceptual framework (Figure 2) depicts the outline to capture the indicators and variables to assess the sustainable performance of the French bean. Literature shows that a large number of the frameworks for sustainability assessment are available (de Olde et al., 2016) and are often inadequate to capture all dimensions and functions of the evaluation of the sustainability of agricultural livelihood activities (Binder & Feola, 2013). Further, Goswami et al. (2017) viewed a huge lacking of tools to capture the livelihoods and ecological interaction in the farming sector of developing countries.

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework for assessment of the sustainable performance of French bean

(Source: Authors compilation).

On the other hand, driving force state response (DSR) framework, OECD (1997) identified 39 issues, which includes socio-economic background land use patterns. Sands and Podmore (2000) used environmental sustainability index with 15 sub-components. Tellarini and Caporali (2000) used the monetary value, and Gowda and Jayaramaiah (1998) used nine indicators, including productivity and yield, to evaluate the sustainable performance of rice production in India. Coleman (1990) proposed social and natural capital to measure the sustainability. Gaventa (1995) separated capital into 4- human, environmental, economic and social. Reijntjes et al. (1992) recognized a set of issues under economic, social and ecological dimensions. Carney (1998) proposed social, human, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability. Scooner (1998) proposed natural, economic, human, social capitals, livelihood strategies, livelihood diversification, income, poverty, and well-being through the framework of sustainable rural livelihoods. Schroter (2010) proposed economic, social, human and environmental sustainability to assess sustainable performance. Accordingly, this framework includes not only sustainability indicators (economic, human, social and environmental sustainability) but also livelihood strategies/components of farmers, the pattern of contribution by different components to the annual income of the farmers, consistency of the livelihood activity in the system of the farmers, expenditure pattern of the farmers and interaction between sustainability index (consult sub-section 2.5) and livelihood index (consult sub-section 2.6).

Furthermore, (including earlier mentioned literature: Binder & Feola, 2013; Carney, 1998; Coleman, 1990; de Olde et al., 2016; Gaventa, 1995;Goswami et al., 2017; Gowda & Jayaramaiah, 1998; OECD, 1997; Reijntjes et al., 1992; Sands & Podmore, 2000; Scooner, 1998; Tellarini & Caporali, 2000) various literature, namely, Indicators of Sustainable Development: Guideline and Methodologies by (UN, 2007), sustainable Consumption and Production Indicators For The Future SDGs (UNEP, 2015), Sustainability Evaluation Checklist (Schroter, 2010) and Developing Methodologies for Livelihood Impact Assessment: Experience of the African Wildlife Foundation in East Africa (Ashley & Hussein, 2000) and a livelihood study on pineapple growers in West Siang district of Arunachal Pradesh (Gamlin, 2016) were consulted to select and include issues/parameters under different indicators to assess the sustainable performance of French bean.

It is already mentioned that all the respondents were from a backward tribal community with poor educational qualifications, which were considered during the selection of issues/parameters under four indicators (namely, economic, human, social and environmental) to assess sustainability. Altogether, 48 issues/parameters under 4 indicators (i.e. 12 parameters under each indicator) of sustainability were taken into consideration to measure the sustainable performance of French bean. Further, scoring was done (following Likert type scale) as follows- most often = 4, often = 3, sometimes = 2, rare = 1 and never = 0. Respondents were asked to respond according to their degree of agreement with each parameter under different indicators.

The overall mean of all indicators and parameters were calculated, and greater than the mid-point of weightage was the cutoff point to consider the sustainability of French bean as a livelihood component.

2.5. Sustainability index

A sustainability index was also developed for the study. The calculation of the sustainability index was done by the total score achieved by the individual respondents (in respect of 48 statements/parameters) divided by the total achievable score and multiplied by 100. $\mathrm{S}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}/\mathrm{p}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}}\times 100}$

2.6. Livelihood index

All the livelihood activities maintained by each respondent were recorded and recognized as a livelihood activities. All the livelihood activities were further categorized under broad-head livelihood, namely, crop-based, livestock-based, forest-based and off-farm livelihood activity. A livelihood index was developed based on the number of livelihood activities maintained by the individual and the maximum number of recognized livelihood activities maintained among the respondents. Respondents were asked to mention all livelihood activities maintained by them, and numbers of activities were converted into a score by giving weightage of 1 to each livelihood activity. Further, the maximum number of livelihood activities maintained among the respondents were also calculated and converted into the score, accordingly. The calculation of the livelihood index was done by the total score achieved by the individual respondents divided by the maximum achievable score and multiplied by 100. The formula adopted for calculation of the livelihood index is given below: $\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{T}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{f}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{M}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{x}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{m}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{b}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}}\times 100}$Altogether, 25 livelihood activities were identified from the study community. All the livelihood activities were categorized under 4, namely, crop-based, livestock-based, forest-based and off-farm livelihood activities. It was also observed that all the respondents were growing French bean and collecting firewood from the forest. About 97.08% of the respondents were growing maize, 90.41% rearing chicken and 88.75% of them rearing pig. The individual respondent maintained a maximum of 10 and a minimum of 3 livelihood activities (Benjongtoshi, 2020; Benjongtoshi & Patra, 2021a).

2.7. Hypothesis testing

Two null hypotheses were formulated for their due testing during the present research investigation.

H₀1: There is no association between the respondents’ annual income from French bean cultivation and their pattern of annual expenditure.

H₀2: There is no association between perceived indicators of sustainability and the livelihood index of the French bean growers in the area under investigation.

2.8. Data collection

In the present study, primary and secondary data were collected. For primary data collection, an interview schedule was prepared after the inclusion of all issues under study, which finalized after pre-testing. Regarding sustainability assessment, 48 issues/parameters under 4 indicators (i.e. 12 parameters under each indicator) were considered. Issues/parameters under the economic indicator are: (1) potential for steady and standard income, (2) Cost of management is cheaper compared to other crops, (3) Income per unit area is higher compared to other crops, (4) Income opportunity during the off-season, and (5) Round the year price is standard, (6) Better savings, (7) Income opportunity for women, (8) Procurement of planting material is easy, (9) Chance of crop failure is less, (10) Cost–benefit ratio is higher, (11) High demand in the market, and (12) Post-harvest management is easier. The issues/parameters under human indicators are: (1) reducing poverty, (2) addressing food security, (3) addressing issues of nutrition, (4) addressing issues of health, (5) addressing issues of taste/palatability, (5) generating employment, (6) improving living standard, (7) unskilled workers can perform in cultivation practices, (8) requirement of physical capability for cultivation is not important, (9) knowledge requirement for cultivation is not important, (10) requirement of workers for cultivation is low, (11) level of education for cultivation is not important, and (12) can be carried out by both men or women.

Similarly, the issues/parameters under social indicators are (1) recognition, (2) up-scaling the social prestige, (3) maintaining the happiness of the family, (4) compatible with landless/small farmers, (5) gender discrimination is absent, (6) enhance the current standard of living, (7) compatible with food habit, (8) compatible with social norms and values, (9) good source of income for social groups like SHGs, (10) crops can be grown traditionally, (11) cultivation is easily taken up by development sector, and (12) cultivation is familiar with all the members of the family. Lastly, the issues/parameters under environmental indicator are: (1) restore ecological balance and biodiversity, (2) not undermining the natural resources, (3) favourable for organic cultivation and without chemical inputs, (4) production is consistent, (5) maintain soil fertility, (6) control soil erosion, (7) suitable in mixed cropping and jhum (shifting) fields, (8) can grow in climatic stress condition, (9) can grow in less fertile soil, (10) restore soil moisture, (11) crop residues can be used as fodders for animals, and (12) crop is climate-resilient. Further, scoring was done (following Likert type scale) as follows- most often (extremely present) = 4, often (frequently present) = 3, sometimes (sometimes present) = 2, rare (rarely present) = 1 and never (absent) = 0. Respondents were asked to respond according to their degree of agreement with each parameter under different indicators. Primary data were collected from individual respondents through the personal interview method with the help of an interview schedule by the researcher. Secondary data were collected through an extensive literature review of reliable sources.

2.9. Statistical tools and analysis

The data collected from the respondents were scored, tabulated and analysed using suitable statistical tools and techniques. The statistical tools and techniques used in the study were: frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation (SD), range, ranking, correlation and regression. Further, mean and SD were used to categorize respondents under different aspects.

3. Results and discussion

The research findings are presented and discussed in this section, following the objectives and framework of the study. According to the framework of the study, the results and discussion section is organized as follows. Firstly, we present and discuss the role of French bean as a livelihood component, followed by examining the contribution of different livelihood components in terms of income and contribution to the overall income of the respondents. The next section covers the annual expenditure pattern of the respondents for their livelihood and survival. Followed by relationship studies between socioeconomic characteristics and income from the French bean, as well as income from the French bean and expenditure for livelihood presented. The last section covers the sustainability study and the relationship between sustainability and livelihood indexes.

3.1. Role of French bean as a livelihood component

The scientific community has recognized the role and importance of pulse cultivation in nutrition and food security (Paffarini et al., 2021). To explore the role and importance of French bean in the growers’ livelihood under EHR, the following parameters, namely, the pattern of contribution in income from different crops, livestock, forest, and various off-farm livelihood activities on overall agricultural income, were studied. Further, the contribution of French bean and other livelihood activities on total annual income and the respondents’ annual expenditure pattern were also analysed and discussed in this section.

Initially, cropping pattern, area, production, productivity, the experience of French bean cultivation and use of marketing channel to sell harvested French bean of study community were studied to examine the role of French bean. Unscientific crop rotation was a recognized constraint in sustainable agriculture (Patra, 2004), and training had an immense role in mitigating the constraint (Patra & Mondal, 2007). In EHR, shifting cultivation (locally known as jhum) with mixed cropping is prominent apart from the terrace and settles cultivation, which is also reflected in the findings of the study. All the respondents were continuing shifting cultivation with mixed cropping and 37.91% also with pure cropping. In respect of land under French bean cultivation, the study reveals that the majority of the respondents (82.91%) had medium land allocation (0.38–3.33 ha) under French bean cultivation, 12.91% of the respondents had a large area of land (>3.33 ha) and 4.16% of the respondents had a small area of land (<0.38 ha) under French bean cultivation. The average land size under French bean cultivation was 1.86 ha with a standard deviation value of 1.47. In this regard, Adolph et al. (2021) reported that smallholder farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa are facing challenges in achieving sustainability. Concerning this Seghezzo et al. (2020) reported that farming is sustainable with relation to small farm size.

Adoption of the Sustainable agricultural practices has direct impact on yield upscaling (Masikati et al., 2021 and Winowiecki et al., 2021). Regarding the production of the French bean, 67.91% of the respondents had medium production, 18.33% had high production, and the remaining 13.75% had low production of French bean. The average production was 1265.32 kg. On the other hand, 74.58% of the respondents had a medium level of productivity, 17.91% had high productivity, and the remaining 7.50% of the respondents had low productivity of French bean. The average productivity was 792.39 kg/ha. The productivity of French bean was relatively low in the study area, and increasing productivity without hampering the environment is a prerequisite for sustainable agriculture (Haggar et al., 2021). Concerning the productivity, research-extension revitalization is consistently required (Nord et al., 2022).

The study also reveals that 38.33% of the respondents had more than 12 years of experience, 35.41% of the respondents had experience of 9–11 years, and 21.25% had 6–8 years of experience. In contrast, only 5.00% of the respondents had an experience of 3–5 years. The mean years of experience of French bean cultivation were 10.49 years with a standard deviation value of 3.08 and ranged from 3 to 20 years.

The study further indicates that 18.33% of the respondents marketed their products through wholesale, whereas 10.00% of the respondents sell their products in the retail and local area. But the majority of the respondents (71.66%) marketed their product using both (wholesale and retail) channels and all the respondents were using barter and currency exchanges.

It could be inferred that the entire respondents continued shifting cultivation with mixed cropping. The majority of the respondents (82.91%) had medium land allocation (0.38–3.33 ha) under French bean cultivation, and the average land under French bean cultivation was 1.86 ha. Further, 67.91% and 74.58% of the respondents had a medium level of production and productivity. The average production was 1265.32 kg, and productivity was 792.39 kg/ha. It could also be observed that 38.33% of the respondents had more than 12 years of experience and the average experience in French bean cultivation was 10.49 years. And 71.66% of the respondents used several channels to sell harvested French bean.

3.2.1. Pattern of income from crop-based livelihood activities and contribution to the annual income (Indian rupee: ₹)

It is clear from the study (Figure 3) that French bean cultivation contributed 46.30% to ‘agricultural income’ (including livestock), 73.82% to ‘income from crop production’ and 43.05% to ‘annual income’. The average ‘income from French bean was ₹30,372 (1US$ = ₹74.13). The ‘income from French bean’ was ₹72,89,300 with an income range of ₹1800–1,12,000.

Figure 3. Pattern of income from different crops, contribution to agricultural and annual income.

Major crops like rice, maize, soybean and chilli were also contributed 8.44, 7.94, 0.01 and 0.02%, respectively to ‘agricultural income’; 13.46, 12.66, 0.02 and 0.03%, respectively to ‘income from crop production’; and 7.85, 7.38, 0.01, 0.02% respectively, to ‘annual income’. The average income from rice, maize, soybean and chilli cultivation was ₹ 5541.30, ₹5209.17, ₹10.42, and ₹12.50. The average income from crop production (including income from the French bean) was ₹ 41,145.47.

It is clear that French bean had contributed around 73.82% to ‘income from crop production’, 46.30% to ‘agricultural income’, and the largest proportion (i.e. 43.05%) to ‘annual income’. Therefore, the French bean played a promising role as a livelihood component in the study area.

3.2.2. Pattern of income from different livestock-based livelihood activities and contribution towards agricultural income and annual income (₹)

In the study area, respondents were rearing chicken, pig, Mithun, and beehives for their livelihood. Pig rearing contributed the highest, i.e. 81.07% of ‘income from the livestock sector’; 30.21% to ‘agricultural income’, and 28.09% to ‘annual income’ (Table 1). The average income from pig rearing was ₹19,820. The range of income from pig rearing was ₹8000–72,000. Other livestock rearing practices, like chicken, apiary, and Mithun rearing had a negligible contribution towards ‘agricultural income’ and ‘annual income’. The average income from overall livestock production was ₹24,448.33 (Table 1).

Table 1. Pattern of income from different livestock and contribution towards overall agricultural and annual income (₹) N = 240.

Livestock	Mean income (₹)	SD	Range (₹)	Total income (₹)	Percentage contribution to total income from livestock	Percentage contribution to income from agriculture (including livestock)	Percentage contribution to the annual income
Chicken	1,091.25	1524.85	500–7500	2,61,900	4.46	1.67	1.54
Pig	19,820.63	13894.96	8000–72,000	4,756,950	81.07	30.21	28.09
Beekeeping	331.46	1138.05	450–7500	79,550	1.35	0.50	0.47
Mithun	3205.00	15475.52	7200–90,000	7,69,200	13.10	4.88	4.54
Total	24,448.33			58,67,600

Among the livestock, pig rearing was contributed the highest in ‘agricultural income’, which may be because pork has high acceptability among the farmers in the study area and the increased market demand for meat. Besides the market demand, pig rearing is considered a tradition among the farmers, where every farming household is rearing for consumption and income.

3.2.3. Pattern of income from different forest-based livelihood activities and contribution to the annual income (₹)

Table 2 reveals that firewood collection contributed 63.85% to ‘income from forest-based livelihood activities’ and 1.94% to ‘annual income’ where the mean income was ₹1368.75 with an income range of ₹6000–24,000. Timber collection contributed 32.07% to ‘income from forest-based activities’ and 0.97% to ‘annual income’. The mean income was found to be ₹687.50 with an income range of ₹10,000–50,000. Forest honey and bamboo collection were also found to contribute about 1.36% and 2.72%, respectively, towards ‘income from forest-based livelihood activities’ and 0.04 and 0.08% to annual income. The average income from overall forest-based livelihood activities was ₹2143.75. Also, firewood collection and timber collection were found to be the significant income-generating activities under forest-based livelihood activities in the study area.

Table 2. Pattern of income from forest-based livelihood activities and contribution towards annual income (₹) N = 240.

Activities	Mean income (₹)	SD	Range (₹)	Total income (₹)	Percentage contribution to income from forest-based livelihood activities	Percentage contribution to the annual income
Firewood	1368.75	4218.47	6000–24,000	3,28,500	63.85	1.94
Timber collection	687.50	4486.88	10,000–50,000	1,65,000	32.07	0.97
Forest honey	29.17	265.09	2000–3000	7000	1.36	0.04
Bamboo	58.33	553.36	3000–7000	14,000	2.72	0.08
Total	2143.75			5,14,500

3.2.4. Pattern of income from different off-farm livelihood activities and contribution to the annual income (₹)

Table 3 shows that the mean income from government jobs was ₹20,750 with an income range of ₹10,000–30,000. It contributed about 0.49% to the total annual income and 12.33% to income from ‘off-farm livelihood activities’. Weaving was found to contribute 1.31% to the total annual income and 33.15% to income from off-farm livelihood activities with an income range of ₹3000–22,000 and a mean income of ₹8924. Carpentry and business had a mean income of ₹5714.29 and ₹62,400 with an income range of ₹4000–8000 and ₹2000–2,40,000, respectively. They were found to contribute 0.23 and 1.84%, respectively, in the ‘annual income’ and 5.94 and 46.35% in ‘income from off-farm livelihood activities’. The average income from overall off-farm-based livelihood activities was ₹2804.58, and off-farm livelihood activities contributed 4.31% to the total annual income of the French bean growers.

Table 3. Pattern of income from off-farm livelihood activities and contribution towards annual income (₹) N = 240.

Activities	Total income (₹)	Mean income (₹)	SD	Range (₹)	Percentage contribution to income from off-farm livelihood activities	Percentage contribution to the annual income
Gov. job	83,000	20,750	137621.20	10,000–30,000	12.33	0.49
Weaving	2,23,100	8924	4538.66	3000–22,000	33.15	1.31
Carpentry	40,000	5714.29	1380.13	4000–8000	5.94	0.23
Business	3,12,000	62,400	99793.79	2000–2,40,000	46.35	1.84
Driving	15,000	15,000	–	–	2.22	0.09
Total	6,73,100	2804.58

3.2.5. Contribution from different livelihood activities to annual income (₹)

Income and contribution from various livelihood activities to ‘annual income’ and ranking according to the contribution are depicted in Table 4. French bean cultivation had a contribution of 43.05% to the ‘annual income’ and ranked as first in respect of contribution. The average income from French bean was ₹ 30,372.08. Livestock-based livelihood was found to contribute 34.65% and ranked as second according to contribution to ‘annual income’. The average income from the livestock sector was ₹24,448.33. Crop-based livelihood activity (excluding French bean) was ranked as third and contributed about 15.27%. The average income from crop-based livelihood was ₹10,773.38. The off-farm and Forest-based activities were found to contribute 3.97 and 3.03% to the annual income and ranked fourth and fifth, respectively. The average income from forest-based and off-farm activities was ₹2143.75 and ₹2804.58, respectively. Table 4 also reveals that the average income from all livelihood activities was ₹70,542.12 (The average in 2020 was 1US$ = ₹74.19). According to the World Bank (2022), the per capita income of the Indians in the year 2020 was US$1927.7 {approximately ₹1,42,900.401 (US$1927.7 × ₹74.13)}. Therefore, the average annual income of French bean growers of EHR of India was less than half of the per capita income of the Indian citizen.

Table 4. Ranking of different livelihood activities according to contribution to annual income (₹) N = 240.

Livelihood activities	Mean income (₹)	SD	Percentage contribution to the annual income	Ranking based on percentage contribution to the annual income
Crop based (excluding French bean)	10,773.38	6116.66	15.27	III
Livestock based	24,448.33	19962.84	34.65	II
Forest based	2143.75	6105.94	3.03	V
Off farm	2804.58	16147.28	3.97	IV
French bean	30,372.08	20053.70	43.05	I
Total	70,542.12

Based on the study's findings and the highest contribution of French beans to the annual income of the growers (Table 4). It can be concluded that French bean had immensely been played a significant role in the livelihood of the farmers in the study area, followed by livestock-based, crop-based, off-farm and forest-based activities.

3.2.6. Annual expenditure pattern of the respondents for their livelihood and survival

Various sources of income from different livelihood activities and patter of expenditure on different heads for daily life were equally essential to delineate the livelihood features. Table 5 shows that 38.72% of expenditure was on food with the mean expenditure of ₹16,120, followed by 31.84% of the expenditure on education with an average expenditure of ₹13,259.17. Around 7.01% of the expenditure was spent on phone bills, with an average expenditure of ₹2921. Another, 4.23% of the expenditure was on electricity with an average expenditure of ₹1761.25.

Table 5. Annual expenditure pattern of the respondents (₹) N = 240.

Item	Expenditure (₹)	Expenditure Percentage	Mean (₹)	SD
Food	38,68,800	38.72	16,120.00	7916.23
Clothing	1,78,660	1.78	744.41	1132.35
Cooking fuel	2,58,500	2.58	1077.08	3256.21
Health	76,600	0.76	319.16	568.97
Phone bill	7,01,040	7.01	2921.00	1193.45
Electricity bill	4,22,700	4.23	1761.25	251.36
Transport	35,500	0.35	147.91	1067.78
House maintenance	4000	0.04	16.66	203.86
Social	26,000	0.26	108.33	272.00
Religious	18,800	0.18	78.66	258.80
Education	31,82,200	31.84	13,259.17	13330.92
Cultivation	12,18,460	12.19	5076.91	3501.60
Total	9,991,260	100.00	41,630.25	–

Further, 2.58% of the expenditure was on cooking fuel with an average expenditure of ₹1077.08, and 1.78% of the expenditure was on clothing with average spending of ₹744.41. Again, 12.19% of the expenditure was on cultivation, with an average expenditure of ₹5076.91. The table also reveals that respondents had spent a small amount on health, transport, house maintenance, social and religious activities, respectively. Table 6 indicates that 69.17% of the respondents had medium expenditure, 15.00% of the respondents had low expenditure, and the remaining 15.83% had high spending. The average expenditure of the respondents was ₹41,630.25.

Table 6. Distribution of respondents based on the total expenditure (₹) N = 240.

Expenditure	Frequency	Percentage	Mean	SD
Low (<₹ 21,761.73) (<µ -SD)	36	15.00	41,630.25	19868.52
Medium (₹ 21,761.73–₹61,498.77)(µ -SD to µ+SD)	166	69.17
High (>₹ 61,498.77) (>µ+SD)	38	15.83
Total	240	100.00

Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of the farmers in the study area had a medium level of annual expenditure, where major expenditure was found to be incurred for food, followed by educational expenditure, cultivation, phone bill, electricity bill, cooking fuel, clothing and other miscellaneous purposes.

3.2.7. Relationship between various socio-economic variables and income from French bean cultivation

An attempt has been made to study the relationship between the income from the French bean as a livelihood component and various perceived socio-economic explaining variables. Table 7 shows that out of 12 socio-economic variables studied, nine variables, namely, ‘material possession’, ‘educational qualification’, ‘sources of information’, ‘size of landholding’, ‘land under French bean cultivation’, ‘French bean production’, ‘annual income’, ‘income from agricultural sector’, ‘annual expenditure’ had a significant and positive relationship with income from the French bean. The remaining 3 variables, namely, age, experience, and type of house, had established a non-significant relationship and this finding aligned with the results of Patra et al. (2018) and Silvestri et al. (2021).

Table 7. Relationship between socio-economic variables and income from French bean N = 240.

Socio-economic variables	Value of ‘r’
Age	−0.075 NS
Experience in French bean cultivation	0.079 NS
Material possession	0.210**
Educational qualification	0.134*
Sources of information	0.127*
Type of house	−0.111 NS
Size of landholding	0.661**
Land under French bean cultivation	0.792**
French bean production	0.807**
Annual income	0.459**
Income from the agricultural sector	0.709**
Annual expenditure	0.369**

*Significant at 5%, table value: 0.127.

**Significant at 1% level, table value: 0.166.

NS – not significant.

3.2.8. Relationship between various annual expenditure patterns and income from French bean cultivation

Table 8 shows the relationship between various annual expenditure patterns of the respondents and income from French bean cultivation. Out of four different expenditure patterns, two, i.e. ‘ expenditure on food’, and ‘expenditure on education’ showed a positive and significant correlation with income from the French bean.

Table 8. Relationship between various annual expenditure patterns and their income from French bean cultivation.

Expenditures	Value of ‘r’
Food	0.282**
Clothing	0.039 NS
Health	0.114 NS
Education	0.324**
Total Expenditure	0.369**

*Significant at 5%, table value: 0.127.

**Significant at 1% level, table value: 0.166.

NS - Not Significant.

The correlation value between ‘expenditure on food’ and ‘income from French bean’ was 0.282, which denotes a strong and positively significant correlation between them.

The correlation value between ‘expenditure on education’ and ‘income from French bean’ was 0.324 to indicate the existence of a strong and positively significant correlation between those.

Though the relationship study (Table 8) has failed to exhibit any significant relationship between the two other selected parameters of annual expenditure, i.e. ‘expenditure on health’ and ‘expenditure on clothing’ with that of their annual income from the French bean, the ‘overall annual expenditure’ combining all the four parameters of expenditure patterns, nevertheless, appeared to have exhibited a very strong and positive relationship with that of the annual income from the French bean of the respondents under investigation with corresponding correlation value being 0.369.

Table 9 shows the simple regression analysis between income from French bean cultivation (x) and five other socio-economic issues (y) concerning respondents’ expenditure pattern, namely, annual expenditure, expenditure for food, education, health, and clothing. From these five simple regression equations, it can be concluded that the income from French bean as an independent predictor has a significant and positive role on the pattern of expenditure and livelihood, viz. total annual spending, expenditure on food and education. No significant but positive impact of income from French bean was found on expenditure on health and clothing.

Table 9. Linear regression analysis between income from French bean cultivation and expenditure pattern of respondents.

Variables	Intercept	Β	SE	T value of β
Fooding	12,735	0.111	0.02	4.54*
Education	6,702.31	0.215	0.04	5.29*
Health	220.468	0.003	1.77	0.076
Clothing	675.598	0.002	0.003	0.610*
Total expenditure	26,298.8	0.337	0.055	6.132*

The reflection from simple regression analysis, as has found a place in Table 9, it once again gets transpired that although there appeared somewhat skewed pattern of a causal relationship between the annual income from French bean cultivation as independent predictor variable with those of various explaining variables of livelihood expenditure, overall annual expenditure, however, exhibited a high degree of positive and significant interdependence.

Based upon this revelation arising out of the perusal of Tables 8 and 9, the null hypothesis H₀1 states ‘there is no association between annual income from French bean cultivation by the respondents and their pattern of annual expenditure’ is rejected.

3.3. Sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR as a livelihood component

Various indicators of sustainability, namely, ‘economic sustainability’, ‘human sustainability’, ‘social sustainability’ and ‘environmental sustainability’ were taken into consideration.

3.3.1. Economic sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR

Altogether, 12 parameters (Figure 4) were included under economic sustainability with a maximum achievable score of 4.00 and a midpoint score of 2.00. Figure 4 reveals that in respects of (1) potential for steady and standard income, (2) Cost of management is cheaper compared to other crops, (3) Income per unit area is higher compared to other crops, (4) Income opportunity during the off-season, and (5) Round the year price is standard’, the mean score was 2.98, 3.12, 3.13, 2.64 and 2.90, respectively. The mean score was greater than the midpoint score in respect of all.

Figure 4. Economic sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR.

Similarly, in respect of (6) Better savings, (7) Income opportunity for women, (8) Procurement of planting material is easy, (9) Chance of crop failure is less, (10) Cost–benefit ratio is higher, (11) High demand in the market, (12) Post-harvest management is easier, and the mean scores were 2.92, 2.50, 3.46, 3.06, 3.15, 3.22 and 3.50, respectively (Figure 4).

Concerning all the parameters, the mean score was found to be higher than the midpoint score. The overall mean with respect to economic sustainability was 3.05, which signifies that the performance of French bean as a livelihood component towards economic sustainability was highly satisfactory.

3.3.2. Human sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR

Figure 5 shows the sustainable performance of French bean under EHR concerning human sustainability. Altogether, 12 parameters were included under human sustainability with a maximum achievable score of 4.00 and a midpoint score of 2.00. We can see that in respect of ‘reducing poverty’, ‘addressing food security’, ‘addressing issues of nutrition’, ‘addressing issues of health’, ‘addressing issues of taste/palatability’, and ‘generating employment’, the mean scores were 2.48, 2.38, 2.97, 2.90,3.23 and 1.70, respectively.

Figure 5. Human sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR.

Likewise, ‘improving living standard’, ‘unskilled workers can perform in cultivation practices’, ‘requirement of physical capability for cultivation is not important’, ‘knowledge requirement for cultivation is not important’, ‘requirement of workers for cultivation is low’, ‘level of education for cultivation is not important’, and ‘can be carried out by both men or women’ the mean scores were 2.68, 2.81, 3.16, 2.90, 3.38, 3.65, respectively. For all the parameters, the overall mean score was 2.89 and was found to be higher than the midpoint scoring and signified that the performance of French bean towards human sustainability was satisfactory.

3.3.3. Social sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR

Figure 6 shows the performance of French bean cultivation with respect to social sustainability. As earlier, 12 parameters were included under social sustainability with a maximum achievable score of 4.00 and a midpoint value of 2.00.

Figure 6. Social sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR.

Similarly, for parameters, ‘recognition’, ‘up-scaling the social prestige’, ‘maintaining the happiness of the family’, ‘compatible with landless/small farmer’, ‘gender discrimination is absent’, ‘enhance the current standard of living’, ‘compatible with food habit’, ‘compatible with social norms and values’, ‘good source of income for social groups like SHGs’, ‘crops can be grown traditionally’, ‘cultivation is easily taken up by development sector’, ‘cultivation is familiar with all the members of the family’, the mean scores were 2.60, 2.70, 2.99, 2.82, 3.75, 2.74, 3.30, 3.50, 2.48, 3.65, 2.51 and 3.46, respectively. The overall mean score was 3.04, which signifies that the performance of the French bean-based livelihood system towards social sustainability was satisfactory.

3.3.4. Environmental sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR

Achieving environmental sustainability through environmental management is a critical global policy question (Patra & Babu, 2023). Environmental issues, like drought, negatively affect agricultural productivity (Simtowe et al., 2021). Figure 7 shows the performance of French bean cultivation with respect to environmental sustainability. 12 parameters were also included under environmental sustainability with a maximum achievable score of 4.00 and a midpoint value of 2.00. In respect of following parameters, ‘restore ecological balance and biodiversity’, ‘not undermining the natural resources’, ‘favorable for organic cultivation and without chemical inputs’, ‘production is consistent’, ‘maintain soil fertility’, ‘control soil erosion’, ‘suitable in mixed cropping and jhum (shifting) fields’, ‘can grow in climatic stress condition’, ‘can grow in less fertile soil’, ‘restore soil moisture’, ‘crop residues can be used as fodders for animals’, and ‘crop is climate-resilient’, the mean scores were 2.44, 2.85, 3.10, 2.66, 2.30, 2.90, 2.41, 2.55, 2.73, 2.91, 2.13, 2.29, respectively.

Figure 7. Environmental sustainability of French bean cultivation under EHR.

The overall mean score was 2.65, which is above the midpoint score. Therefore, it is evident from the study that the performance of the French bean-based livelihood system towards environmental sustainability was satisfactory.

3.3.5. Relationship between sustainability index and livelihood index

Here an attempt was made to study the relationship between the ‘livelihood index’ and four components of the sustainability index (i.e. economic sustainability, human sustainability, social sustainability, and environmental sustainability) along with the overall sustainability index. Table 10 shows the relationship between various sustainability indicators, overall sustainability and the livelihood indices.

Table 10. Relationship between sustainability index and livelihood index.

Indicators	Value of ‘r'
Economic sustainability	0.09 NS
Human sustainability	0.16*
Social sustainability	0.06 NS
Environmental sustainability	0.14*
Overall sustainability	0.17**

*Significant at 5% (table value: 0.127).

**Significant at 1% (table value: 0.166).

NS – not significant.

The correlation value between ‘economic sustainability’ and ‘livelihood index’ was 0.09, which denotes a non-significant but positive correlation. But French bean’s performance was significant regarding economic sustainability (Figure 4). The correlation value between ‘social sustainability’ and ‘livelihood index’ was 0.06, which shows a non-significant but positive relationship. And the performance of French bean was significant in respect of social sustainability (Figure 5).

The correlation value between ‘human sustainability’ and ‘livelihood index’ was 0.16 to indicate the existence of a positively significant correlation between them. Similarly, the correlation value between ‘environmental sustainability’ and ‘livelihood index’ was 0.14, showing a positively significant relationship. Krishna et al. (2020) reported that productivity is an essential consideration for sustainability. Consistent productivity of French bean was included as a parameter under environmental sustainability. Further, Keil et al. (2020) considered consistent productivity under varying climatic conditions as a sustainability parameter. French bean’s performance was satisfactory in respect of consistent productivity, resilient performance and in climatic stress conditions. Therefore, this paper's findings align with the results of Krishna et al. (2020) and Keil et al. (2020).

Though Table 10 has failed to exhibit any significant relationship between the two other selected parameters of sustainability i.e. ‘economic sustainability’ and ‘social sustainability’ with that of ‘livelihood index’, the ‘overall sustainability’ combining all the four parameters of sustainability, nevertheless, appeared to have exhibited a positive relationship with that of ‘livelihood index’ with a corresponding correlation value of 0.17. Concerning this Keil et al. (2020) reported that zero-tillage wheat had given sustainable/consistent productivity.

Based on the findings (Table 10), the null hypothesis H₀2 states ‘there exists no association between perceived indicators of sustainability and livelihood index of the French bean growers in the area (EHR) under investigation’ is hereby rejected.

4. Concluding remarks

To achieve the SDGs and avoid the trade-off between the role of crops in climate change and global warming versus sustainable, resilient and vulnerable characteristics, economic, human, social, and survival aspects of agriculture-based livelihood activities should be appreciated. Till agriculture and allied sector are the primary livelihood alternatives and 70% of rural households are primarily continuing agricultural activities for their livelihood and accommodating the majority of country's workforce. But, the contribution of agriculture to India national GDP is consistently decreasing. Further, India is the largest producer (25% of global production), the consumer (27% of world consumption) and the importer (14%) of pulses in the world. But, Indian farmers are earning 4–5 times less than the farmers of Myanmar and Australia.

The study revealed that a majority of the respondents (52.91%) across the study area had income from ₹35,001 to 70,000 per annum, categorized as a lower-middle-income group. The average annual income of the respondents was ₹70,542.13, and income from agriculture was ₹65,593.80. Side by side average income from French bean was ₹30,372.08. French bean contributed the highest (i.e. 46.30%) in total agricultural income (crop and livestock), 73.82% of income from crop production and 43.05% in total annual income. The livestock sector had emerged as 2^nd significant role player in livelihood and contributed about 34.65% of annual income. Other important livelihood activities in descending order were crop-based, off-farm and forest-based activities.

The study showed that the major area of expenditure by the respondents was on food with a mean expenditure of ₹16,120, followed by spending on education with average spending of ₹13,259.17. Also, 69.17% of the respondents had average expenditure, 15.00% had low expenditure, and the remaining 15.83% had high spending. The average spending of the respondents was ₹41,630.25. Further, income from French bean had contributed about 73.00% of the total expenditure.

The study showed that out of 12 socio-economic variables studied, nine variables showed a significant and positive relationship with income from the French bean. The study showed that food expenditure (r = 0.282), education expenditure (r = 0.324) and total expenditure (r = 0.369) had a positive and significant correlation with income from the French bean. Also, the study showed the relationship by simple regression analysis between income from French bean cultivation (x) and five other socio-economic issues (y) concerning the expenditure pattern of respondents, viz. total annual expenditure, expenditure for food, education, health, and clothing.

In the study on the sustainable performance of French bean as a livelihood component, 48 parameters under four components of sustainability were considered. It was found that in respect of 47 parameters, the performance of French bean was satisfactory and was also very much satisfactory in terms of economic, social, human, and environmental sustainability. Further, the study established a positive and significant relationship between the livelihood index and the perceived sustainability index.

The study also established an association between the respondents’ annual income from French bean cultivation and their pattern of annual expenditure. It was also confirmed that an association existed between perceived indicators of sustainability and the livelihood index of the French bean growers.

Therefore, we can conclude that all pulses are an important source of vegetable protein and play significant role in human nutrition and food security. Pulses are an important substitute for animal protein. Animal protein is responsible for about 50 times more emission of GHGs than vegetable protein. Further, these are playing an immense role in soil health and environment management by nitrogen fixation and reduction of industrial pollution for production of chemical fertilizers.

In EHR, livelihood of people is diversified {altogether, 25 livelihood activities were recognized and individual respondent was maintaining 3–10 livelihood activities (Benjongtoshi, 2020; Benjongtoshi & Patra, 2021a)}. Cultivation is consistent with the social system with average 10 years of continuous cultivation. It is ranked as the first livelihood component in terms of contribution to annual income and immensely plays a role in the socio-economy and livelihood of the study community. Other livelihood activities in descending order are; livestock-based, crop-based (excluding French bean), off-farm, and forest-based livelihood. Despite less income from French bean cultivation than other countries, it is giving a good return and contributing about 43.00% to annual income and providing 73.00% of the study community's annual expenditure. It is also a highly sustainable livelihood component in terms of economic, human, social and environmental sustainability. Therefore, the French bean is a significant, promising and sustainable livelihood alternative in EHR.

Despite French bean being the major crop in the study area, productivity is relatively low. More focus should be given to sustainable French bean production with higher productivity to augment the income and bring all-round development to the region. It is also essential to capitalize the potential of the livestock sector (which contributed about 34.00% to annual income) to ensure and accelerate better livelihood for the study community and farmers of EHR. Further, in this study, we have developed and applied a framework to assess the sustainable performance of French bean which adopted all the issues associated with the sustainable performance of the crop. The framework developed in this paper seems adequate to assess sustainable or unsustainable performance of all crops and livelihood components. It can also be applied to assess the sustainable performance of other crops or activities under similar or different geographical and agro-ecological situations.

Further, it is important to mention that the study was based on perceived data from respondents, which depends on the recall and perception capacities of the respondents. Inferences and conclusions were based on a particular region’s study, emphasizing a specific livelihood component. To enhance the robustness of the developed framework, we are continuing research in different areas with different livelihood components.

Acknowledgements

This paper is an outcome of PhD research at SASRD, Nagaland University, Nagaland, India. The authors would like to thank Nagaland University, Nagaland, India. India. The authors thank all the respondents for their kind contribution and cooperation. We thank Dr Priyabrata Santra, Principal Scientist, ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur, India, for the valuable suggestions for drafting this paper.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).