Applying Socio-Ecological Perspective for Fostering Resilience in Rural Settlements—Melghat Region, India

Abstract

At the brink of climate change, the perpetual human–nature links observed in remotely placed rural settlements, particularly those nested within ecological regions, are alleged to be deprecating. While the indigenous communities across protected forest areas depend on the surrounding environment for their livelihoods, the emerging climate discrepancies are posing serious concerns to their sustenance. To better understand the impacts of climate change on rural settlements, this research deliberates on the case of the Melghat region in central India, with a specific focus on the Lawada and Kotha settlements. At first, a methodical understanding of Socio-Ecological Systems (SESs) in Melghat is established by meticulously uncovering its social and ecological characteristics. Thereafter, to unearth the interdependencies between the two systems, an indicator-based framework is established. The SESs in the selected settlements are then analyzed based on the evaluation of community responses for defined indicators, using the choice-based preference method. The study outcomes reveal that the local communities consider the “Livelihoods” aspect to be the most critical element of resilience, and the progressive depreciation of nature-based livelihood practices is primarily influencing the local SESs. Correspondingly, this research characterizes the overall results with the existing scenario in Melghat to determine the key areas of intervention. Emphasis has been laid on strengthening the traditional systems to build alternative livelihoods that are resilient to the impacts that are exacerbated by climate change.

1. Introduction

Rural communities are often disproportionately affected by the changing climate, due to their considerable reliance on climate-sensitive sectors. In recent decades, the complexity of this problem has risen to a new level due to human-induced climate change [1,2]. Millions of livelihoods are anticipated to be adversely affected globally by human-induced climate change compounded with natural climate variability, as inferred from the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations [3]. Thereupon, the volatile nature of emerging changes pose major significant challenges to the prospects of rural communities′ growth and management [3,4]. Numerous researchers have repeatedly pointed out that the imprudent development drift after globalization is affecting indigenous communities negatively in terms of environmental pollution, landscape change, biodiversity loss, shifting demographics, etc. [1,5,6]. The development factors, such as increased connectivity, governmental schemes, zoning restrictions, low-cost alternatives, and other basic accessories, are further proving fatal for the traditional rural systems, which are seemingly eclipsed by the modern-day technology [7].

Based on existing literature, the effects of agricultural practices on rural areas are anticipated to be more distorted by climate change [8]. For instance, the shifts in cultivating seasons will have significant impact on the productivity in rural areas [9]. Remarkably, in the context of remote rural communities, the congruence between the society and environment determines the survival and growth of the residing population [10]. Their customary sustainable use of biodiversity and traditional ecological knowledge are manifestations of the distinctive traits arising from the social and ecological interactions in such locations [11]. Correspondingly, the role of social and ecological systems (SESs) as complex adaptive systems is being universally acknowledged, and is presently being examined from the perspective of strengthening rural communities against emerging risks [12]. More recently, the resilience discourse has been gaining significance in contemporary developments, mainly in the context of rising vulnerabilities to disasters [13]. Nonetheless, its application at the rural scale is still in its incubation stage [14,15], particularly in the direction of evolving development policies in India. It is therefore vital to focus on SESs′ resilience, or their capacity to function and retain structure in the face of shocks and adapt to change, as they are thought of as dynamic evolving systems [12,16,17].

Today, the rural population residing around natural systems, such as forest areas, are under increasing pressure due to their restricted access, economic instability, continuing population growth, competition for claims on land, and climatic challenges. Notably, 58% of Indian rural households are directly involved in agricultural activities [18], and this, coupled with the progressive changes in climate, is amplifying risks for the rural population of the country. Recent studies suggest that the development strategies in India are not only inequitable, but frequently suboptimal because of political volatility, lack of contextualism, and lack of synergies in policy implementation [19,20,21]. Thereupon, these strategies regularly fail to cater to the diverse communities of the nation, especially the rural communities in remote areas. Subsequently, the indigenous communities residing at such locations are often deferred from the development process [22]. Over that background, the goal of this study is to enhance the research perspective at a grassroots level. Focusing on two selected rural settlements from the Melghat region in central India, namely Lawada and Kotha, this research investigates their sinuous relationship with the surrounding environment at micro level. The two key objectives of this study are: (1) To define an SES-based indicator set for guiding the resilience assessment in protected forest areas; (2) To investigate the community preferences in the Melghat region for the selected parameters and derive relevant strategies for fostering resilience in SESs.

The structure of the remaining paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a brief overview of human–nature interactions in protected forest areas and the need for resilience. In Section 3, the case-study of the Melghat region is introduced, and a precise description of the research methodology and survey procedure is provided. The study results and analysis are explained in Section 4. In Section 5, specific strategies based on the regional characteristics and community preferences are discussed, followed by comprehensive recommendations. Finally, the key conclusions and research limitations are described in Section 6.

2. Theoretical Background

This section is mainly intended to establish a strong theoretical foundation for the conducted research. It comprises two subsections. The first subsection deliberates on the human–nature interactions in protected forest areas, and the second explicates SESs and their vital role in achieving resilience.

2.1. Human-Nature Interactions in Protected Forest Areas

Over the years, unique biocultural systems have been developed worldwide, through the co-evolution of humans and nature [23]. The social systems that are influenced by and that coexist with nature have complex interactions with the ecological substrate. For survival, these social systems rely on the interactions with natural resources [10]. Due to these interlinkages, the human (social) and natural (ecological) systems of a region are often viewed as a holistic complex adaptive system [24,25]. The geographical characteristics of any given area are defined by the flora and fauna in the area, its existing geo-traditional practices, and abiotic factors such as resource availability and soil type, etc. Depending on such characteristics, the pattern, intensity, and scale of human-nature interactions vary significantly [10,26].

The UNU-IAS policy report (2013) [27] specifies that the ability of social and ecological systems to deal with complexity and adapt to changing circumstances is necessary for managing these interconnected social and ecological systems [28]. Corresponding to the progressive development scenarios, the interactions among these systems and their effects have been shown to increasingly impact the world′s socioeconomic and environmental conditions [29]. The haphazard development scenario notably continues to alter the global environmental settings in terms of hydrological cycles, biogeochemical forest, climate change, and forest cover. Recent studies suggest that the evolutionary trajectories of many other species have also been altered by human influence, which has widespread consequences [30]. It is alleged that due to continued negligence and depletion of available natural stock, there is an immense alteration of ecological dynamics which is ultimately causing loss of biodiversity and crucial ecosystem services [31]. In light of that, there is a need for an approach which is more sustainable and holistic for their optimization through an adaptive process.

The rural communities living within and around the protected forest areas are inextricably linked with the abutting ecological systems [26]. Hence, apprehending the social and ecological systems as a single system that functions across intertwined spatio–temporal scales is essential [17]. Therefore, to achieve environmental sustainability, it is desirable that both systems are integrated [32]. Today, keeping track of unpredictable dynamic changes is crucial for these complex adaptive systems [33]. The necessity for sustainable development is now more critical than ever, as we are on the verge of progressive degradation of the natural resources.

2.2. Need for Resilience in Socio-Ecological Systems (SESs)

The development of environmental management, policy recommendations, and sustainable adaptations, despite the current uncertainty, are all supported by sustainability science. Sustainability science particularly focuses on providing comprehensive approaches (i.e., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary) to understand the dynamic linkages between nature and society, as the Socio-Ecological Systems (SESs) are inherently complex and interconnected [34]. Bergamini et al. [28] expound that, for generations, production activities and conventional practices have generated the mosaic aspects of SESs while absorbing shocks to the system.

Evident from the literature, both the social and ecological systems mutually benefit from one another and have coevolving relationships [16,17,35]. Acknowledging the complexities within SESs and the inherent uncertainties is, therefore, vital for resource management in the long term. Folke [36] specifies that effective governance and management techniques that are resilient to unpredictability are necessary, given the rapid changes in these complex systems.

Previous studies reveal that the study of social and ecological systems in an isolated manner yields trivial results. Subsequently, the growing body of theoretical and empirical studies, and the urgent sustainability challenges that society faces, are driving the development of several emerging approaches in the context of SESs [37]. It is understood that the resilience of SESs depends on ecological and social characteristics [38]. Dwelling in and around nature, the SESs in rural areas are particularly entangled, as they are subject to environmental stressors and perturbations at various scales, from extreme weather events to profound demographic and institutional changes. Herein, the concept of evolutionary resilience is based on the observation that a situation that appears stable in nature or society can abruptly shift into something wholly new, with distinct characteristics from the initial situation [39]. Furthermore, from the understanding of the concept, SESs are dynamic (rather than static), with extensive feedback processes functioning at various spatio–temporal scales [40].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Methodology

Considering local communities as primary stakeholders, this study attempts to evaluate their preferences in strengthening the SESs. In doing so, the study utilizes the approach of indicators. It is explicit through the current literature that many conceptual frameworks have been established for understanding resilience. However, in many of these frameworks, the conventional indicators of SESs, such as the traditional ecological knowledge, are often neglected. Nevertheless, this knowledge is useful, as it provides insight into local ecology and the socio-cultural interactions across it, which is crucial for ecosystem resilience and functioning [28,38]. In light of that, this study attempts to first establish a set of locally relevant indicators that help to understand SESs in the context of remote rural areas.

3.1.1. Survey Process

Community-level surveys (consultation workshops) were conducted in both the selected settlements (Lawada and Kotha) of the Melghat Region. The settlements for the study are selected based on the characteristics of remoteness, low population density, high exposure to disasters, and limited coping mechanisms. The survey format for the study is divided into two sub-sections: the first section has questions about the socioeconomic circumstances of the residents, and the second section contains choice sets for the five selected indicator sets of the study (as elaborated in Section 3.1.2).

At the outset, pilot surveys were conducted for both the settlements to calibrate the survey questionnaire and model all the conditions that would be faced during the actual surveys. As a result, it was decided that workshops were a better approach for the surveys. Therefore, one workshop is conducted for each settlement. To avoid a bias in the values obtained, a stratified random sampling approach is adopted for the collection of data. Thus, an attempt is made to record an equivalent number of observations from both of the selected settlements (around 35 participants from each settlement). In addition, the workshop comprised participants from different social groups: elderly and adults, men, and women, validating idealistic responses from all groups. The workshops started with explaining the study objectives and the defined indicators to the respondents, as the subject matters relating to vulnerability were new to many. Later, interactive sessions were conducted in both settlements before the choice surveys to establish a thorough understanding of the processes within SESs, before focusing on the resilience assessment. Whether and how the daily interactions between people and the surrounding environment contribute to resilience of these systems was at the core of discussion in the interactive sessions. Considering the characteristics of tribal communities, rural context, and limited literacy levels in rural communities of the Melghat region, the survey questionnaires are explained to the participants via prepared display sheets to easily make them understand their preferences in the choice-based survey.

3.1.2. Evolving Indicator Set for Investigating SESs in Remote Rural Areas

The existing indicators of a community’s ability to withstand disasters are primarily categorized into five categories: social, economic, institutional, physical, and natural [41,42,43]. Markedly, as long as they consider the universal development aspects such as institutional setups, finances, infrastructure, etc., these indicators do not apply a social–ecological framework. To contextualize the customary dimensions of resilience, based on the characteristics of SES, the existing indicators are re-elaborated to adjust them to study objectives. Moreover, the study indicators are intended to capture the various elements necessary and involved in maintaining a resilient society in various geo-climate zones (e.g., cultural, social, ecological, and agricultural). To deal with the interaction of gradual and sudden change in many sectors, the variables that structure the socio–ecological dynamics have been identified and aptly characterized. The resilience index prepared for this study has been broadly classified into five dimensions, set as described in

Table 1. Indicators and Sub-indicators defined for the study.

Ecosystem Services

Food Variety

Forest Produce and Timber

Landslide and Flood Protection

Customs and Rituals

Environmental Governance

Ecosystem Knowledge and Training

Participatory Governance

Active Engagement in Ecological Conservation

Monetary Provisions for Ecological Conservation and DRR

Socio-Cultural

Ethics and Norms for Resource Conservation

Continuity of Traditional Knowledge Systems

Climate Adaptive Lifestyle

Recognition for Innovations in Adaptation and Mitigation

Livelihoods

Availability of Alternative Income Source

Distance from Livelihood Supporting Services

Access to Financial Institutions

Training and Development

Natural Hazards

Early Warning Systems

Integration of Hazard Map in Planning

Adaptive Measures and Coping Mechanisms Against natural Calamities

Response Mechanism and Community Capacity

(five indicators shown in bold and four sub-indicators for each).

It is important to acknowledge that sub-indicators under each of the five defined indicators are prepared in consultation with the local communities of the Melghat region, and their overall selection is based on their significance, relevance to the objectives of the study, and applicability. The developed framework determines the significance of all the selected parameters and guides the resilience assessment of SESs. It aims at administering the existing resources, capabilities, knowledge systems, and conservation activities, along with their associated resources and stakeholders, to arrive at apposite development strategies for the regional systems and an integrated conceptual model for communities in remote locations. The indicator set includes both qualitative and measurable aspects, and the indicator scores are purely determined by how the local communities perceive themselves and their daily experiences.

Following is a brief description of the selected indicator set categories:

• Ecosystem Services:

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Report [44] defines ecosystem services as benefits which the people obtain from ecosystems. Degradation of ecosystem services leads to vulnerability in SES [45]. Services provided by the ecosystem, such as groundwater recharge and flood and landslide protection, naturally aid in adaptation to the harsh environment. As there would be fewer options for risk management, the loss of diversity in these functions would have a significant impact on human development [28]. Thus, the entire system can transform into a new system if all the components that sustain a function disappear at once [46]. In this particular case, the study considers food variety; forest produce and timber; water recharge; flood protection; and customs and rituals as critical sub-indicators for ecosystem services.

• Environmental Governance:

Environmental governance refers to the processes of decision-making involved in the control and administration of environmental and natural resources. Proper knowledge of the ecosystems, training to the community living in the settlement, participatory governance, active engagement in ecological conservation, monetary provisions for ecological conservation, and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) are chosen as sub-indicators under this category.

• Socio-Cultural:

Socio-cultural refers to “human population viewed in its ecological context and as one of the many subsystems of a larger ecological system.” Socio-cultural aspects can promote innovation and experimentation through learning and proper understanding of existing problems [46]. The four sub-indicators falling under this category are ethics and norms for resource conservation, continuity of traditional knowledge systems, climate adaptive lifestyle, and recognition for innovations in adaptation and mitigation.

• Livelihoods:

A person′s livelihood refers to their “means of securing the necessities—food, water, shelter and clothing”. Under livelihoods, availability of alternative income sources [47], distance from livelihood support services, access to financial institutions, and training and development [48] are considered as sub-indicators.

• Natural Hazard:

Natural hazard refers to the naturally occurring events that might have a negative effect on people or the environment. Events beyond human control are described as having a variety of repercussions on people, which could make people more vulnerable to them [49]. However, there are certain measures to reduce their impact on the system. Early warning systems, integration of hazard maps in planning, adaptive measures and coping mechanisms against natural calamities, response mechanisms, and community capacity are the sub-indicators chosen under natural hazards.

The indicators for this study are selected such that they capture all the essential attributes, complexities, and the dynamic nature of SESs. The set of parameters thus developed in the study can influence the resilience of rural settlements.

3.1.3. Choice Experimentation Method

There are numerous statistical methods of determining how much each individual values various indicators of a product or situation. Among those, this study uses choice modelling, for its many advantages, to evaluate the identified resilience indicators of SESs. The choice experiment helps in determining which conglomeration of traits has the most significant impact on respondents′ decisions or choices.

At first, two generic alternatives for each choice set (specified by four respective indicators or respective sub-indicators), are presented to the survey respondents. Later, the respondents are presented with the five designed indicator sets (Table 1). The study defines two contradictory phases for each indicator, the positive aspects being denoted by ‘1’ and negative aspect by ‘0’. The permutations and combinations for the set of choices for the five indicators of SESs and respective sub-indicators are derived using the binary method. This derivation is performed in such a way that no two choices appear the same for survey respondents. As a result, a total of seven choice sets are derived and shown to the survey respondents (

Table 2. Choice set formation for sub-indicators under each indicator sets.

Sr. No.	Choice A	Choice B
1	1000	0111
2	1001	0110
3	1010	0101
4	1011	0100
5	1100	0011
6	1101	0010
7	1110	0001

Source: Based on [27].

). The overall choice sets for indicators within five defined aspects sum up to 35 (seven each for five aspects), and an additional choice set comprising all five broad aspects is also included. The number of iterations for this concluding set sums up to 15, which takes the total number of choice sets to 50. Coefficients obtained through the logit model in R provided the basis for interpreting the statistical significance of each sub-indicator. The values of vectors of five indicator sets were estimated for both the settlements.

3.1.4. Data Analysis

As mentioned in the previous Section 3.1.3, the collected data comprises two set of choices, namely ‘A’ and ‘B’, for the permutation and combination of variables. The data is then converted into binomial form by replacing A by 1 and B by 0. The collected settlement-wise binary data is tabulated in a Microsoft Excel sheet. Further, this data was converted in .csv format, which is supported by software R studio for running a Generalized Linear Model (GLM). The GLM model is run because the logit model helps understand the significance of each variable in the data set, to obtain the logit regression coefficient values.

As stated, the coefficients obtained by logistic regression are challenging to interpret because of the nonlinearity and the complicated algebraic translations. The log of odds is one of the easiest ways to understand and interpret the coefficient values among all the choices of transformation. An interpretation of the logit coefficient, which is usually more intuitive, is the “odds ratio”. It is the ratio of the probability of occurrence of an event to the probability of its non-occurrence or p/(1-p). Therefore, if we take the exponent constant (e = 2.72) and raise it to the power of coefficient, we obtain the odds ratio. The interpretation of the odds ratio can be performed as one unit difference in predictor X corresponds to a multiplicative change of ‘e’ to the power coefficient in the odds of Y (43, 50). The odds ratio scores signify the comparative level of significance of indicators, which helps to prioritize the indicators.

3.2. Case Study Area-Melghat Region

The Melghat region lies at the northern extreme of the Amravati district of Maharashtra State in India (as shown in Figure 1), along the southwestern Satpura Mountain ranges. The region comprises mainly two tahsils of Amravati District, namely Dharni and Chikhaldhara [50]. The term “Melghat” literally means a place where several hills (ghats) meet, and represents highly undulating and deep valleys, offering great diversity: rugged and undulating topography with variation in vegetation almost every mile. Melghat Tiger Reserve (MTR) is one of the first nine tiger reserves included in Project Tiger launched in 1973, with a total area of MTR 2027.41 km². A major part of the Melghat region is covered by Tiger Reserve (buffer zone) and the reserve forest [51]. Apparently, Melghat is known to be one of the most remote areas in the Amravati district [50]. The region has been in the limelight for the past 20 years on account of deaths of children due to malnutrition, as an estimated 5000 tribal children died of malnutrition during the years 1992–1997 [52].

Melghat is predominantly a rural region (the percentage of the rural population is 94.72%) and has a rich tribal culture. Korku is the predominant tribe in the region, comprising 80% of the tribal population and other tribes as Gond, Nihal, Mongias, Thatia, Halbi, Balai, Wanjaris, Gawli etc. constitute the remaining population [53]. This study covers two medium size settlements of the Dharni block of the Melghat region, namely Lawada and Kotha, having populations of 1787 and 1064, respectively. Figure 2 depicts the regional settings around the two selected rural settlements. Notably, both settlements are located outside the boundary of Melghat Tiger Reserve.

In terms of geographic location, Melghat is in the central highland biotic province of the Deccan biogeographic zone, and supports the typical dry teak forest of Central India [54]. Except for the southwest monsoon season, the climate of the Melghat region is characterized by a scorching summer and general dryness year-round [55], although it also gets pleasant at the higher altitudes of the region (average temperature ranging from 43 °C to 12 °C in winters). In the rainy season (mid-June to mid-October), the area receives annual rainfall varying from 1000 to 2250 mm [56]. In addition to the five major rivers that comprise the Tapti River′s tributaries—Khandu, Khapra, Sipna, Garga, and Dolar—the area is also drained by other streams. The area exhibits two distinct geographical regions: the plains of the Purna Basin and the hilly tract of the Gawilgarh Range. The soils in the Melghat forest are radish brown and the slopes, under fairly high rainfall, permit the leaching of soils, making them poor in time and alkalis [57].

In addition to meeting the aesthetic, cultural, educational, and recreational needs of people from across the nation, Melghat has derived environmental values in terms of water regimes maintenance and soil conservation, as well as maintaining the biological diversity of the region. This has subsequently provided livelihood to the local people and helped in their sustenance [56]. Jawale [58] stipulates that although the main source of income for the local population is from rainy season agriculture and labor work, they augment their income by collecting non-timber forest products, such as flowers, seeds, charoli, tendu-leaves, etc. Musavi [56] explains that the local communities′ varied occupations give them access to a range of food and money sources, spreading the risks of being vulnerable to climate change. Additionally, as revenue villages, they benefit from several activities (apart from logging) carried out by the wildlife and forest departments within the reserved forest area. The gains from these areas thereby lead to employment creation and welfare initiatives of various government organizations functioning in the area. The residents of the Melghat region are directly (supply of fuel wood, bamboo shoots, lumber for building houses and fences, seeds, roots, bamboo, leaves, forest vegetables, fish, fruits, and other plant materials, as well as pasture for cattle) and indirectly (farming, the selling of agricultural surplus, the sale of head-loading timber, fish and dairy products, and other employment opportunities) dependent on the forest areas for their livelihoods.

Emergent Dilemma in Managing Conventional SESs

Before the British rule (in 1853), the woodlands of Melghat tehsil were traditionally used by the locals for trade of forest products and shifting cultivation. Furthermore, the local tribes of the region have been engaged as labourers in forestry-related activities and logging for a long time [56]. However, there was a sudden advent of the Melghat Tiger Project in 1972. Since then, the settlements in and around the Melghat protected areas have been subjected to additional pressures, varying from wildlife conflicts to government regulations. As a result, the local livelihoods have been persistently impacted. Melghat is presently regarded as one of the Maharashtra state′s least developed areas, owing to the presence of the Tiger Project. The Melghat region comprises five protected areas and 349 human settlements [59], scattered across different and contrasting geographic locations. The regional depravity [50,54] reveals that the government schemes and policies have failed to uplift the development pace of these tribal communities. The region’s typically lower socioeconomic status, social marginalization, and degrading health scenario are primarily attributed to the restricted access to forest areas.

Furthermore, climate change is threatening the already stressed rural systems influencing agriculture, natural ecosystems, animal husbandry, housing patterns, resource availability, etc. The degrading water resources have even made traditional occupations such as fishing unrealistic because of unpredictable weather and seasonal changes. The loss of species in cropping systems is forcing the farmers to use fewer varieties of crops, and, consequently, reducing the redundancy of crops. The seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature have led to an enormous impact on agro-climatic conditions. As a result, the local population is continually being forced to migrate for work during the rest of the year [58].

Based on the community consultation workshops conducted in two selected settlements (Kotha and Lawada; Section 3.2), it has been observed that the important stakeholders in Melghat are broadly categorized into eight caste groups, namely, Korku, Gond, Gawli, Bhomka, Thakur, Basod, Lohar, and Charmakar (Figure 3). Each of the eight interlinked groups plays a role in the sustenance of local community livelihoods. These stakeholders knowingly protect and safeguard the environment by their nature-friendly traditions, rituals, and customs [53]. The conventional dependency cycle is highlighted in Figure 3, and each of the groups play a role in the sustenance of community livelihoods. However, on the verge of modernization, these networks are at risk, as most of the community members, being dependent on agriculture, are forced to seasonally migrate or change their occupations due to climate change. Specific social groups, such as “Charmakar” and “Thakur” (as shown in Figure 3), are reported to have vanished from the community cycle as their traditional occupations are no more practiced.

As depicted in Figure 3, the predominant social and economic ties among the social groups reflect the heavy reliance of locals on established social networks. The support systems of food and labor sharing also include exchange, reciprocity, barter system, etc., which have invariably persisted in Melghat. However, following climate change, these support systems are on the verge of collapsing as many of the stakeholders seasonally migrate or temporarily work afar due to a lack of opportunities in the region. Further, the social structure has changed drastically as the vulnerable communities are changing their occupations in search for a stable income source, eventually migrating to urban areas for better opportunities. The local restrictions on the cultivation of land and collection of minor forest produce have further added to the complexities of local communities, and eventually forced the communities to vacate their long-acquired traditional lands. As a result of the local communities′ growing landlessness, a lack of economic prospects in non-agricultural sectors, and inadequate agricultural support infrastructure, local agroecosystems are being exploited by the communities [56].

4. Results

The results from the community survey have been presented in a chart form (Figure 4), which illustrates the respective odds ratios of all selected indicators for five defined indicator sets separately. From the Figure 4a, it can be observed that within the four indicators of Ecosystem Services, the odds (probability) of enhancing or reducing other parameters of ecosystem services (ES1, ES2, and ES3) will likely change by a factor of 1.47 if the predictor of “Customs and Rituals” (ES4) is changed by 1 unit of time interval, keeping all other predictors constant. The probability of such parameters changing (positive or negative) would still affect the ratio to food variety (ES4), even if the other factors stay the same. Herein, a chance of a response of less than 50% is indicated by an odds ratio of less than 1. This relationship contrasts with the one that accommodates the dynamic character of SESs, and is described by linear regression. Thus, in the case study context, based on the odds ratio, it can be comprehended that, the attached “Customs and Rituals” (ES4) is comparatively more significant and the preferred choice of the residents for the resilience of aspect “Ecosystem Services”(ES). This does not downplay the significance of other parameters but could mean that the local communities in Melghat region believe in the need to emphasize these services in planning approaches for the settlements.

Likewise, the choice preferences for all five dimensions of SESs are analyzed, and the key observations are as below:

• Based on Figure 4f, it is manifested that the “Livelihoods” (LV) indicator set has the foremost role to play in enhancing the resilience of SESs in rural settlements of the Melghat region, and the residents primarily aspire for “Alternate Income Sources” (LV1) (Figure 4d). Any improvements in the livelihood aspect would therefore greatly benefit the rural systems, likely because the residents are highly sensitive to rising externalities due to the restrictions on land cultivation and the collection of small forest produce.
• Deprived of perpetual access to forest resources and located at such fragile locations, the local communities in Melghat believe that “Environmental Governance” (EG) is the second-most decisive factor for easing their socio-ecological stressors (Figure 4f). Within the “Environmental Governance” (EG) aspect (Figure 4b), the local communities believe that “Active community Participation in Ecological Conservation” (EG3) has the most important role to enhance the resilience of SESs holistically.
• Though it is widely known that the rural settlements are based on their traditional beliefs and customs, it has been found in the study that the Melghat communities have given the least preference to the “Socio-Cultural” (SC) aspect (Figure 4f) in context of emerging disaster risks. Within the SC aspect (Figure 4c), the traditional “Ethics and Norms” (SC1) aspect is seen to have the most consequential role in sustaining environmental services.
• In the context of adaptability to “Natural Hazards” (NH), the residents of Melghat believe that their “Coping Mechanisms” (NH3) would majorly determine the resilience of communities (Figure 4e). Notably, the communities have given the least preference to the aspect of “Response Mechanisms” (NH4), which implies that the communities are more concerned towards disaster preparedness rather than response.

In consideration of overall results, Figure 5 summarizes the community preferences for all the indicators, and helps to visualize the potential sectors in Melghat, providing an optimal focus for development in different sectors. In the schematic diagrams, the varying thickness of arrows around the Socio-Ecological Resilience (SER) implies the preference levels for various aspects.

In Figure 5, the higher odds ratio indicates a higher relevance in the resilience context, and the varying sizes and colors of the circles denote the choice-based preferences for variables in all the identified aspects of SESs. The tabulated level of significance in Figure 5 briefly presents all the identified priorities that need to be worked out in Melghat from a community perspective. Noticeably, the communities in Melghat have given higher preference to “Alternate livelihoods” (LV1), “Active participation in Ecological conservation” (EG3), “Coping Mechanisms” (NH3), “Customs and Rituals” (ES4), and “Ethics and Norms” (SC1). The development practices in Melghat should correspondingly be aligned with the identified community priorities, with an aim to make the development planning for these small rural communities holistic. The core development focus for strengthening SESs in protected areas of Melghat should be on the livelihood′s aspect, with a special focus on alternate income sources, as it is the most consequential sector identified by the local communities.

5. Discussion

Dwelling around the rich forests of Melghat, the local communities have shared an intimate relationship with nature for generations, while being dependent on it for a variety of ecosystem services, such as nutritious food, clean air, raw materials, and medicine [60]. However, at the brink of emerging externalities, these remotely placed communities are placed at the vanguard of climate-oriented risks. The primary reason is that the natural milieu on which their livelihoods depend is being altered [2]. Evident from the study results (Figure 4 and Figure 5), the most pertinent issue in the Melghat region is identified to be “Livelihoods”. With agriculture being performed mainly for domestic consumption and the surplus being traded in the weekly market, the local economy is essentially one of subsistence. Therefore, indigenous communities must substitute their primary livelihoods (agricultural) with different livelihood options [61]. Further, it is recommended that the alternative livelihoods for communities located in and around protected areas should be derived essentially based on the local traditional practices. Traditional livelihood strategies diversification, combined with capacity building (for example, through skills improvements and entrepreneurship) in sectors that are not traditional to the area would essentially enable the communities to depend on various sources for income and food, which will eventually help reduce the risks of climate change susceptibility across the region [62].

Having said that, the decision-makers must recognize that indigenous communities play a vital role in forest protection [11]. The valuable traditional knowledge possessed by indigenous communities needs to be acknowledged by giving their due share or equal rights [26]. The study theorizes that the long-term biodiversity conservation is conceivable only when local communities, which are an essential component of the ecosystem, are engaged in management practices [2]. Unlike those governed by Joint Forest Management (JFM), there is a real need for collective community forest preservation measures through Gram Sabha.

Currently, the climate adaptation strategies that are customarily being practiced in Melghat entail low-carbon lifestyles, application of traditional knowledge, management of ecosystem services, sustainable agriculture practices, and increased use of social networks, policy, planning, and strategy development [5]. In parallel to these practices, the following subsections put forward three general recommendations, which are aimed towards strengthening the effectiveness of existing measures and achieving resilience of SESs in rural settlements across Melghat region.

5.1. Promoting Indigenous Economy

As highlighted from Section 2 (literature review), seasonal migration has purportedly been an outburst of depreciation of rural livelihoods in Melghat. To successfully revert the migration patterns, this study argues for the rejuvenation of rural livelihoods. The idea of fortifying the existing rural economic base by promoting the indigenous economy would give a stronghold to the indigenous communities [63]. The traditional occupations in Melghat, such as pastoralism, shifting cultivation, fishing, and gathering, are naturally adapted to the environmental values. Moreover, the traditional knowledge resources possessed by the countryside are valuable from a redundancy perspective, and, to sustain that, a sense of traditional ownership needs to be awakened in the rural masses. The necessary recognition of indigenous people′s traditional knowledge could contribute to the preservation of eco-friendly practices and beliefs, while paving the pathway for uplifting indigenous communities at the grassroots [11].

5.2. Documenting Traditional Knowledge

With advancing times, the traditional knowledge associated with the environment is found to be dwindling. The residual abridged knowledge is visibly insufficient to counter the emerging problems, such as loss of species, degrading soil quality, worsening social structures, etc. [64]. The study underscores that the traditional knowledge possessed by the indigenous communities has the potential to sustain the rural communities if effectually shared and documented. The indigenous peoples have, for years, negotiated with climate-based externalities by suppressing their impacts based on a variety of adaptation and mitigation strategies. The precise documentation of these strategies on different geographical, social, cultural, economic, and political situations would act as an optimum pathway for global communities to follow and effectually deal with. Most of these strategies are based in some way on their traditional ecological knowledge, whether they require modifying current practices or reorganizing their relationships with the environment.

5.3. Enhancing Social Safety Nets

As already deliberated, the rural communities are exposed to numerous stressors, which include cultural and spiritual impacts, demographic changes, displacement from their traditional lands, loss of livelihoods, impacts on food security, health issues, water shortage, etc. However, despite many issues, the rural systems manage to adapt to the evolving changes, and the foremost reason behind that adaptation is the variegated social safety nets. The strong social bonds and community relations among the community members act as shields to the entire community [65]. The smaller groups or individuals exposed to the shocks are covered by the community networks, and the entire community resists the impacts together. These safety nets act as armors to the community members, endowing them the audacity to experiment and innovate in face of emerging externalities. It is clear that the traditional rural systems are guided by the common objectives of defending the community against all externalities. Thus, managing the common property resources of land and forest by maintaining peace and order in the village will lead to healthy and collective living. The strong social security system represented by the rural communities serves as an ideal model, where the people of the village are held together by social, economic, political, and ritual ties [65].

5.4. Policy Implication of the Study

The application of a socio-ecological systems perspective for fostering resilience is a crucial aspect and it needs to be taken forward for policy application. Though the requirement for the application of such methods exists at high-level policy making, such as the Sendai framework and the National Disaster Management Plan of India, the application on ground has not taken proper form, or is still in experimentation in most of the cases. Moreover, a single unique method for socio-ecological perspective for fostering resilience is never agreed upon, considering multiple factors that influence the application of a particular resilience method.

Firstly, the research method presented in this study creates opportunities for decision makers to intentionally engage community and make them a part of policy planning. In addition, the visual displays and choice modelling adopted for the study could overcome the challenges of illiteracy and language barriers, making citizen engagement much more viable. The prioritized indicators ultimately reflect the choices of adaptations that the communities make to move towards a resilient system. Conducting more such studies could proactively prepare the disaster risk policy planning leaders for the upcoming uncertainty and achieve resilience in the overall system.

Secondly, the derived indicator set can be further used for quantification and comparison of various geographical cases, which would interest certain groups for the purpose of assessing the positive effects. The use of choice modelling at a higher scale, the application of such modelling at a national level, and their use by government bodies is limited in the present context. However, the indicator set is highly practical for application at a ministerial level or national level.

Overall, the study reflects that socio-ecological approaches for fostering resilience can be used, as a tool to identify the prioritized interests of the community in achieving resilience, which makes the policy interventions unambiguous [66,67].

6. Conclusions

The robustness of SESs in rural systems, especially those around the natural systems, majorly determines the survival and safety of the residents. The Melghat region represents a socio–ecological system that works in coherence with local communities. The indigenous communities have adapted to their surroundings in such a way that the core values of ecosystem conservation have always been upheld. The study stresses the role of a remotely located community′s opinions in decision making. This research attempts to support the idea that dynamics of human–nature interactions mostly occur at a local level, and can be changed by choices made by the local communities. This study has tried to evaluate the priorities in the resilience components (five indicators, as elaborated in Section 3.1.2) of human–nature interactions by involving the local residents from the selected rural settlements of Melghat region by conducting a choice experiment with them. Therefore, this research proposes an indicator set as measurable factor for fostering resilience in the study area.

Previously, it has been recognized that measuring resilience from an SES perspective, under the influence of constantly changing urban systems, seems quite problematic. Correspondingly, in the context of this study, the authors duly acknowledge that the rural systems are discussed independently. Therefore, the authors believe that the future scope of study entails overcoming this research gap. Moreover, the authors also acknowledge the data constraint, as well as the time constraint, for the study, because the study area is in a remote location. While the community surveys have been conducted in selected case study areas only once, future studies may consider assessing the community perspectives in different time intervals of the year. Moreover, it has become explicit that the choice experimentation can serve for deriving valuable inputs for decision-making and community-oriented development of the SESs. The future scope of this study may also involve understanding the dynamics of rural communities in India, and trying to understand if the analyzed variables could help in resilience planning at the national level.