Research Article
Livelihood Diversification, Financial Inclusion and Food and Nutrition-Related Indicators among Pahariya Households in Two PVTG Dominated Blocks of Jharkhand, India: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Baseline Survey
Debanjan Chakraborty*
MBA, MSW, MA (English); Regional Head, Jharkhand, Sarva Seva Samity Sanstha (4S India), Jharkhand, India.
*Corresponding author:Debanjan Chakraborty, Central Coordination Office: B 247, Salt Lake Sector II, West Bengal, India. E-mail Id: chakraborty.debanjan83@gmail.com
Article Information:Submission: 03/09/2026; Accepted: 06/10/2026; Published: 10/10/2026
Copyright: © 2026 Chakraborty D, et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Abstract
Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) in India experience interconnected livelihood, food-access and social-service vulnerabilities. However, household-level evidence linking livelihood resources, financial inclusion, productive assets and food-related practices within PVTG communities remains limited. This study examined these associations among Pahariya households in two PVTG-dominated blocks of Jharkhand.
Methods: A community-based cross-sectional baseline census was conducted under the PAHCHAN (Participatory Action for Holistic Community Advancement and Nutrition) project in Littipara Block of Pakur district and Sundarpahari Block of Godda district. The analysis included 993 households (591 Littipara; 402 Sundarpahari). Household socio-demographic characteristics, livelihood sources, annual income, savings, land, livestock, Self-Help Group (SHG) participation, bank-account ownership, nutrition-garden maintenance, meal frequency and an exploratory dietary-diversity score were analysed. Skewed continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges; block comparisons used Mann–Whitney U or Pearson’s chi-square tests as appropriate. Exploratory binary logistic regression examined nutrition-garden maintenance and lower meal frequency (≤2 meals/day).
Results: Median annual household income was ₹14,200 (IQR ₹7,250–48,250) in Littipara and ₹21,000 (IQR ₹16,400–28,400) in Sundarpahari. Littipara households had more earning members, cultivable land and livestock, higher savings, nutrition-garden maintenance (26.9% vs 8.0%) and adult literacy (41.5% vs 28.1%). Bank-account ownership was 95.3% in both blocks and SHG participation was similar (71.2% vs 72.6%). Reported meal-frequency patterns differed markedly: 72.8% of Littipara households reported three meals per day, compared with 8.2% in Sundarpahari. In adjusted models, nutritiongarden maintenance was positively associated with SHG membership, current savings, livestock ownership and adult literacy, whereas lower meal frequency was strongly associated with Sundarpahari residence and was inversely associated with household income and adult literacy.
Conclusion: The findings indicate substantial contextual heterogeneity among Pahariya households and show that income alone does not adequately capture household livelihood and food-related conditions. Integrated, context-specific approaches combining productive assets, savings and financial capability, community institutions, nutrition gardens, livestock, agricultural support and human-capital development may be more appropriate than singlesector interventions. Because the study is cross-sectional and several measures are self-reported or exploratory, the associations should not be interpreted causally.
Methods: A community-based cross-sectional baseline census was conducted under the PAHCHAN (Participatory Action for Holistic Community Advancement and Nutrition) project in Littipara Block of Pakur district and Sundarpahari Block of Godda district. The analysis included 993 households (591 Littipara; 402 Sundarpahari). Household socio-demographic characteristics, livelihood sources, annual income, savings, land, livestock, Self-Help Group (SHG) participation, bank-account ownership, nutrition-garden maintenance, meal frequency and an exploratory dietary-diversity score were analysed. Skewed continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges; block comparisons used Mann–Whitney U or Pearson’s chi-square tests as appropriate. Exploratory binary logistic regression examined nutrition-garden maintenance and lower meal frequency (≤2 meals/day).
Results: Median annual household income was ₹14,200 (IQR ₹7,250–48,250) in Littipara and ₹21,000 (IQR ₹16,400–28,400) in Sundarpahari. Littipara households had more earning members, cultivable land and livestock, higher savings, nutrition-garden maintenance (26.9% vs 8.0%) and adult literacy (41.5% vs 28.1%). Bank-account ownership was 95.3% in both blocks and SHG participation was similar (71.2% vs 72.6%). Reported meal-frequency patterns differed markedly: 72.8% of Littipara households reported three meals per day, compared with 8.2% in Sundarpahari. In adjusted models, nutritiongarden maintenance was positively associated with SHG membership, current savings, livestock ownership and adult literacy, whereas lower meal frequency was strongly associated with Sundarpahari residence and was inversely associated with household income and adult literacy.
Conclusion: The findings indicate substantial contextual heterogeneity among Pahariya households and show that income alone does not adequately capture household livelihood and food-related conditions. Integrated, context-specific approaches combining productive assets, savings and financial capability, community institutions, nutrition gardens, livestock, agricultural support and human-capital development may be more appropriate than singlesector interventions. Because the study is cross-sectional and several measures are self-reported or exploratory, the associations should not be interpreted causally.
Keywords:Pahariya; Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups; Livelihoods; Financial Inclusion; Self-Help Groups; Food-Related Indicators.