Assessing livelihood in the growth centre- a case of Jaipur

Abstract

The livelihood in an urban growth centre becomes an important point between a rural and an urban economy defining a developmental region. These growth centres emerge due to rapid urbanization which affords providing better access towards education, more employment opportunities, as well as better infrastructure. Thess centres also faces challenges such as disparities in income, environmental degradation and inadequate access to basic services. The understanding of the sustainability of livelihoods in these places becomes very critical, especially for informed urban planning and policy intervention. The study analyses growth centres’ livelihood conditions using the DFID Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), with Jaipur presented as a case study. The study covers five sites in either direction along major roads leading towards Jaipur city, from 11 pre-identified satellite towns and 4 growth centres listed in the Jaipur Development Plan 2025. The research method included the use of qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analyse data. A structured household survey was conducted in five different sites with a total of 100 households surveyed following random sampling based on Slovin's formula. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools such as focus group discussions, interactions with local people, and intensive field observations followed the household survey in order to understand community dynamics, vulnerabilities and strengths. The data collected were analysed using an index ranking method whereby 18 livelihood indicators were scored and ranked into five capital are-physical, human, financial, social, and natural. These were further used to calculate Livelihood Asset Index for each village, which allowed comparisons across sites. The analysis revealed significant differences in livelihood sustainability among the five study sites. Bassi emerged as the most resilient with a Livelihood Index score of 0.638, followed by Kalwar at 0.622. Chandlai and Bagru exhibited moderate resilience, with scores of 0.586 and 0.584 respectively, while Achrol was identified as the most vulnerable, with a Livelihood Index of 0.458. The Priority Matrix was developed to assist in ranking the livelihood capitals according to the severity of their respective deficits, thereby assisting in prioritizing interventions. Top priority was given to restoring natural capital, especially in Achrol and Bagru. Human and social capital improvements were identified as medium priority areas, certainly in Chandlai, Achrol, and Bagru, where strengthening was required for education, health, and community organization. Financial and physical capitals were viewed as relatively stronger. With these rankings, it was decided to develop a phased approach for the enhancement of livelihoods. Phase 1 focuses on the restoration and management of natural capital through watershed management, groundwater recharge, soil conservation, and pollution reduction. Phase 2 focuses on improving human and social assets through smart classrooms, health camps, water ATMs, and strengthening SHGs and community participation. Phase 3 consolidates financial and physical assets by expanding credit access, supporting micro-enterprises, and enhancing market connectivity. The overall application of the DFID Sustainable Livelihood Framework combined with PRA techniques provided valuable insights, for identifying which livelihood require targeted interventions to achieve balanced and sustainable livelihoods. Keywords: Growth Centres, Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Livelihood Asset Index