Socio-Economic Impact of Agricultural Well Electrification on Tribal Farmer Livelihoods: Evidence from Dahod District, Gujarat

Access to reliable electricity for agricultural irrigation remains a critical but underexplored determinant of rural livelihood improvement in tribal India. While the benefits of rural electrification have been documented across India, evidence on its welfare impacts among Scheduled Tribe farming communities in water-scarce districts of western India remains scarce. This study examined the socio-economic impact of agricultural well electrification under Electricity Company’s URJA programme in Dahod district, Gujarat. A cross-sectional survey of 315 beneficiary farmers across eight villages was conducted using a structured interview schedule, with data analysed through descriptive statistics and Kruskal-Wallis tests across income groups. Findings indicate that 73.1% of respondents reported substantial reductions in irrigation costs following the transition from diesel to electric pumping, and household income increased approximately threefold post-electrification. Crop diversity expanded markedly, from approximately two crops to between seven and ten, with farmers transitioning toward vegetables, horticulture, and floriculture. Significant variation in service satisfaction was observed across income groups, with lower-income farmers reporting disproportionately higher maintenance cost burdens. These findings demonstrate that targeted agricultural well electrification can deliver meaningful welfare gains for tribal smallholders, while highlighting the need for complementary support in maintenance access and value chain development to ensure equitable distribution of programme benefits.

rural electrification; agricultural wells; tribal farmers

1. Akber, N., & Paltasingh, K. R. (2025). How could we energise Indian farms? Power investment vs. power subsidy. Energy Research Letters, 6(Early View). https://doi.org/10.46557/001c.142282 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Badiani, R., Jessoe, K. K., & Plant, S. (2012). Development and the environment: The implications of agricultural electricity subsidies in India. The Journal of Environment & Development, 21(2), 244–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1070496512442507 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Balasubramanya, S., & Buisson, M. C. (2022). Positive incentives for managing groundwater in the presence of informal water markets: Perspectives from India. Environmental Research Letters, 17(10), 101001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac914f [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Birthal, P. S., Joshi, P. K., Roy, D., & Thorat, A. (2013). Diversification in Indian agriculture toward high-value crops: The role of small farmers. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(1), 61–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.2012.01258.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Buisson, M. C., Balasubramanya, S., & Stifel, D. (2021). Electric pumps, groundwater, agriculture and water buyers: Evidence from West Bengal. Journal of Development Studies, 57(11), 1893–1911. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2021.1906862 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Census of India. (2011). District census handbook: Dahod. Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Chindarkar, N., & Jain, A. (2020). Link between farm electricity supply management, farm investments, and farm incomes: Evidence from India. Energy Policy, 141, 111407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111407 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Fischer, C., Aubron, C., Trouvé, A., Sekhar, M., & Ruiz, L. (2022). Groundwater irrigation reduces overall poverty but increases socioeconomic vulnerability in a semiarid region of southern India. Scientific Reports, 12, 8850. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12814-0 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Fishman, R., Lall, U., Modi, V., & Parekh, N. (2016). Can electricity pricing save India’s groundwater? Field evidence from a novel policy mechanism in Gujarat. Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 3(4), 819–855. https://doi.org/10.1086/688496 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Government of India, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. (2021). PM-KUSUM scheme booklet. MNRE. https://mnre.gov.in [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Khandker, S. R., Samad, H. A., Ali, R., & Barnes, D. F. (2014). Who benefits most from rural electrification? Evidence in India. The Energy Journal, 35(2), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.5547/01956574.35.2.4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Lee, K., Miguel, E., & Wolfram, C. (2020). Experimental evidence on the economics of rural electrification. Journal of Political Economy, 128(4), 1523–1565. https://doi.org/10.1086/705417 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Mihrete, T. B., & Mihretu, F. B. (2025). Crop diversification for ensuring sustainable agriculture, risk management and food security. Global Challenges, 9(2), 2400267. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.202400267 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mukherji, A., Buisson, M. C., & co-authors. (2021). Electric pumps, groundwater, agriculture and water buyers: Evidence from West Bengal. Journal of Development Studies, 57(11), 1893–1911. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2021.1906862 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Ray, S., & Pullabhotla, H. K. (2023). The changing impact of rural electrification on Indian agriculture. Nature Communications, 14, 6780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42533-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Ray, S., & Pullabhotla, H. K. (2023). The changing impact of rural electrification on Indian agriculture. Nature Communications, 14, 6780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42533-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Shah, T. (2009). Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in South Asia. Resources for the Future Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Urfels, A., Mausch, K., Harris, D., McDonald, A. J., Kishore, A., Balwinder-Singh, van Halsema, G., Struik, P. C., Craufurd, P., Foster, T., Singh, V., & Krupnik, T. J. (2023). Farm size limits agriculture’s poverty reduction potential in Eastern India even with irrigation-led intensification. Agricultural Systems, 207, 103618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103618 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• An Exploration of Stakeholders Perceived Mitigation Measures for Addressing Sanitation Challenges in George Compound in Lusaka Zambia
• Public Participation in Sustainable Development Programs: Examining Public Participation Methods and Levels at Pustaka Negeri Sarawak
• Responding to Climate Change through Livelihood Diversification: Implications of Household Economic Well-Being in Coastal Greater Accra
• Teacher Character Development Through Virtue and Eudaimonia: Insights from Nominal Group Technique (NGT)
• Transformation of Muslim Friendly Hospitality: An Overview of Shariah Compliant Tourism Development in Malaysia