Level of Socio-economic Development in the Mountain Watershed of Uttarakhand State (India)

  • Savita Chauniyal
  • Devi Datt ChauniyalEmail author
Part of the Perspectives on Geographical Marginality book series (PGEO)


Mountains are most diverse in terrain conditions, slope features, altitudinal and climatic variations. Watersheds present a variety of landscape features to lend a good case for the disparities in the socio-economic development in the mountains. These watersheds are different in shape and size. According to altitudinal variations, watershed area can be divided into valleys, mid slopes and ridges. People are interacting with in a watershed from up to down and down to up. But their socio-economic conditions are different in each zones. Therefore, Bino, a marginally located watershed from Uttarakhand state has been taken for the present micro-level study. The main purpose of the present study was to identify the spatial structure of socio-economic development and disparities in the level of development of the Bino watershed. Indicators of development levels were chosen in the light of the ongoing development in the study area. Present study was based on primary and secondary data collected from various sources. The bulk of database comprises village-wise (198) information on wide variety of indicators. The composite level of development indicates that maximum 51.51% villages of the study area were under moderate level (40–60 index group) of development which covers maximum 48.94% population of the watershed. The second highest category of villages (27.78%) falls in the index group of 60–80 (high level) followed by 20–40 (low level) group i.e. 14.14%. Very low share of villages falls in the highest (4.04%) and lowest (2.53%) groups of development. It was noted that higher level of development covers lower share of villages (16.67%) but covers high share (27.11%) of population. Beside this low level of development covers high share of villages (31.82%) but it covers low share (32.94%) of population. Whole analysis is concluded that 73.23% villages are below average level of development while only 26.78% villages are above the average level of development in the Bino watershed.


Development indicators Demographic Agricultural Social Infrastructural Economic and marginal areas 


  1. Babita, (2006). Regional disparities in social-economic development of upper Ganga-Yamuna Doab. Unpublished D. Phil. thesis in Economics, C.C.S. University, Meerut.Google Scholar
  2. Chauniyal, S. (2011). Population, resource dynamics and socio economic development: A case study of Bino watershed. Unpublished D. Phil Thesis in Economics, HNB Garhwal University, Srinagar (Garhwal) Uttarakhand.Google Scholar
  3. Gosal, G. S., & Krishnan, G. (1979). Regional disparities in levels of socio-economic development in Punjab. Chandigarh: Department of Geography, Punjab University.Google Scholar
  4. Gupta A. K. (1978). Regional and dimensional imbalances in agricultural development in Punjab, Haryana and Bihar. M. Phil Thesis, CSRD, JNU, New Delhi.Google Scholar
  5. Haq, M. U. (1976). The poverty curtain; choice for the third word. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Krishnan, G. (1981). Issue of social development. Paper presented to the seminar on Strategy for Rural Development in Western India. ICSSR, Punjab University Chandigarh.Google Scholar
  7. Mamgain, R. P. (2007a). Employment, migration and livelihoods in the hill economy of Uttaranchal. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis in Economics. Centre for the Study of Regional Development School of Social Sciences, JNU. New Delhi.Google Scholar
  8. Mamgain, R. P. (2007b). Growth, poverty and employment. Working paper no. 39, Institute for Human Development, New Delhi. P4.Google Scholar
  9. Mishra, S. K., & Chopra, A. (1979). Dimension of inter-district disparities in level of development in M.P. Indian Geographical Journal, 53(1), 14–26.Google Scholar
  10. Pal, M. N. (1966). Differential regional pattern of consumption of commodities in India. AICC Economi Review.Google Scholar
  11. Papola, T. S. (2002). Poverty in mountain areas of the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Some basic issues in measurement, diagnosis and ALleviation. Talking points 2/02, ICIMOD, Kathmandu.Google Scholar
  12. Raza, M. (1975). Measurement of regional disparities in developing countries with special reference to India. In R. khan., et al (Eds.), India and Soviet Union. Allied Publishers, Bombay.Google Scholar
  13. Sen, L. K., et al. (1972). Reading on micro-level planning and rural growth center. Hyderabad: NICD.Google Scholar
  14. Sharma, H. R., Sharma, R. K., & Kumar, V. (2001). Diversification of rural economy: Effect on income, consumption and poverty. Asian Economic Review, 43(1), 107–114.Google Scholar
  15. Singh, R. (1985). A study of integrated area development in Syalde and salt blocks, Almora District (U.P.).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsD.A.V. (P.G.) CollegeDehradunIndia
  2. 2.Department of GeographyH.N.B. Garhwal Central UniversitySrinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations