Livelihood dynamics of tobacco farmers: A review based on the sustainable framework

Introduction

Livelihood

is increasingly conceptualized as multidimensional system in which households combine resources, capabilities and strategies to sustain their wellbeing, rather than as outcomes defined solely by income or employment generation. Chambers et al., (1992) [11] conceptualized livelihood as comprising the capabilities, assets both material and social activities necessary for sustaining life. Similarly, the Department for International Development (DFID, 1999; Carney et al., 2000; De Stage et al., 2002; Kollmair et al., 2002) [14,10,13,32] described a livelihood as sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets in the present and future, and do so without degrading the natural resource base. Since its emergence in the early 1990s, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA), also referred to as the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) (UNDP, 2017) [64] , has become a widely adopted analytical tool in both academic research and applied development practice, particularly for examining rural livelihoods in developing regions of the global South. Livelihood refers to the combination of assets, capabilities, activities, and access mechanisms that shape how individuals and households sustain their living and secure their well-being (Perodi et al., 2008; Gobind, 2008) [46, 24] . Livelihoods are shaped by the ways in which www.extensionjournal.com individuals and communities organize themselves to transform their environment using technology, labour, power, knowledge, and social relations in order to meet their needs (Pradhan et al., 2020) [47] . In this context, livelihood security refers to adequate and sustainable access to income and other essential resources that enable households to fulfill their basic needs. This includes reliable access to food, safe drinking water, healthcare, education, housing, and opportunities for community participation and social integration (Frankenberger, 1996) [23] . The notion of Sustainable Livelihoods forms the foundation of various Sustainable Livelihood Approaches (SLA), which have been adopted by several development agencies worldwide. Among these, the British Department for International Development (DFID) developed the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF), which has become one of the most widely used conceptual tools in livelihood analysis and development planning. DFID framework was widely adopted by researchers as an effective framework for analysing household livelihood systems and addressing the underlying causes of rural poverty (Yin et al., 2020) [68] . The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach gradually evolved into the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) during the 1990s as it was adopted and operationalized by major development organizations. Early proponents included Oxfam in 1993, CARE International in 1994, and the UK's Overseas Development Administration (ODA) in 1995, which played a key role in formalizing and promoting the framework for development planning and livelihood analysis (Solesbury, 2003) [56] . The SLF provides a structured way to examine how different forms of capital viz., human, natural, financial, physical, and social interact with institutional processes and vulnerability contexts to shape livelihood outcomes.

Livelihood analysis of farmers

Livelihood analysis is fundamental to understanding agriculture as a multidimensional socio-economic system rather than merely a production or income-generating activity (Ellis, 2000) [16] . By integrating five key forms of capital viz., human, physical, financial, natural, and social, it offers a holistic framework to assess how farming households cope with and adapt to stresses such as climatic variability, market volatility, and policy changes (Scoones, 1998; DFID, 1999) [14,52] . In developing countries, where poverty and economic vulnerability are widespread, the concept of livelihood has gained central importance as a key framework for understanding how rural households sustain themselves and cope with risks and uncertainties (Bryceson, 2000; Ellis and Allison, 2004) [8,15] . In agricultural systems increasingly shaped by globalization, commercialization, and regulatory frameworks, livelihood analysis helps identify structural constraints, resilience strategies, and livelihood trade-offs that are often overlooked in conventional assessments based solely on income or productivity (Ellis et al., 2004; Scoones, 2015) [18,53] . Such insights are crucial for designing context-specific extension services, formulating inclusive agricultural policies, and promoting sustainable rural development that strengthens income stability, social equity, and long-term resource sustainability (Carney, 1998; DFID, 1999) [9,14] .

Within this broader analytical framework, the relevance of livelihood analysis becomes particularly pronounced in highly commercialized and institutionally regulated crops like tobacco, where farmers' livelihood outcomes are shaped by complex interactions among markets, institutions, and policy environments. Systematic assessments of livelihood assets and strategies among tobacco-and nontobacco-growing households in the South Nyanza region of Kenya were conducted by Kibwage et al., (2009) [31] , providing important insights into the livelihood dynamics and comparative resilience of farming communities engaged in different cropping systems.

Significance of FCV tobacco in farmers' livelihoods

Flue-Cured Virginia (FCV) tobacco represents one such system in which livelihood analysis provides critical insights beyond conventional economic evaluation. Globally, tobacco is recognized as a high-value commercial crop with assured marketability and strong export linkages, sustaining smallholder livelihoods in several developing countries, including Malawi, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Kenya (FAO, 2003; Makoka et al., 2017; Magati et al., 2019) [22,37,35] . In India, FCV tobacco functions not merely as a commercial crop but as an institutionalized livelihood system characterized by regulated production (Reddy et al., 2019) [50] auction-based marketing, and specialized research and extension support (Hema et al., 2017) [27] . Concentrated mainly in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka states, FCV tobacco cultivation provides relatively stable income, employment opportunities, and asset formation for farming households operating in specific agro-ecological zones. Compared to competing crops, FCV tobacco offers predictable returns and access to institutional credit, enabling farmers to better manage production and price risks. However, FCV tobacco cultivation also requires substantial capital investment, skilled labour, qualitysensitive management, and participation in regulated auction markets, making farmer livelihoods highly dependent on the interaction between financial security, physical infrastructure, human skills, and institutional support. In this context, income-based evaluations alone are insufficient to capture broader dimensions of livelihood sustainability, including vulnerability to policy-induced shocks, labour constraints, market risks, and adaptive capacity to regulatory changes (Scoones, 1998; Kumar et al., 2020) [52,33] . India's commitment to the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) has further complicated the policy landscape, as public health objectives may at times conflict with farmers' livelihood interests. Consequently, assessing whether FCV tobacco continues to provide stable and sustainable livelihoods or whether diversification pathways need to be strengthened has emerged as a critical policy concern. A livelihood-based perspective also enables meaningful comparison across regions such as Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka in terms of productivity, profitability, labour use, and market access, thereby supporting the design of targeted and region-specific interventions. Recent fluctuations in cultivated area and prices, along with increasing emphasis on sustainability and energy-efficient curing technologies, have added further complexity to FCV tobacco-based livelihoods (Kumar et al., 2020) [33] . These evolving www.extensionjournal.com dynamics underscore the need for periodic and comprehensive livelihood assessments to inform evidencebased policy and extension strategies.

Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF).

The transition of sustainable livelihoods from a conceptual approach (SLA) to a structured analytical framework (SLF) was further strengthened by the publication of an influential IDS working paper by Scoones (1998) [52] . This work provided a clear visual representation of the framework, highlighting the central role of institutions and organizations in shaping livelihood opportunities, access to resources and overall livelihood outcomes (Fig 1). Subsequently, DFID advanced the framework by simplifying and operationalizing Scoones' original conceptual model, refining it into a more structured and practical tool that could be applied as a methodology for livelihood analysis and development planning (Carney, 1998) [9] .

Fig 1:

Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis (Scoones 1998) [52]

DFID Framework

The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF), developed by the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID), provides a comprehensive and integrative approach for analysing livelihoods in rural and agricultural contexts. Rooted in the seminal work of Chambers et al., (1992) [11] , the framework conceptualizes livelihoods as the capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of living and define livelihood sustainability in terms of the ability to cope with and recover from stresses and shocks without undermining the natural resource base. DFID operationalized this conceptual foundation into a structured analytical framework that explicitly links household assets, vulnerability contexts, institutional processes, livelihood strategies, and livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999; Carney, 1998) [14] . At the core of the DFID-SLF is the livelihood asset pentagon (Pandey et al., 2017; Baffoe & Matsuda, 2018; Abbassi et al., 2020) [44,6,1] , which comprises five forms of capital: human, physical, financial, natural, and social (Fig 2). These capitals represent the resource base from which households construct their livelihood strategies (Scoones, 1998; Ellis, 2000) [52,16] . This approach has received considerable attention over the past two decades (Fang et al., 2014) [19] and has been widely adopted by international organizations such as the FAO, World Bank, UNDP and DFID to assess and understand the socio-economic conditions of rural communities in developing countries (Ansoms and McKay, 2010; Huang et al., 2021) [5,28] . Human capital includes education, skills, health, and labour availability; physical capital refers to infrastructure and productive assets; financial capital encompasses income, savings, credit, and insurance; natural capital includes land, soil, water, and environmental resources; and social capital captures social networks, institutional linkages, trust, and collective action (DFID, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Scoones, 2015) [14, 16, 53] . The framework emphasizes that these capitals are interdependent, and that deficiencies or strengths in one capital can significantly influence others. Beyond assets, the DFID-SLF explicitly incorporates the vulnerability context, recognizing that livelihoods are shaped by external factors such as climatic variability, market fluctuations, policy changes, and demographic trends (Chambers et al., 1992; DFID, 1999) [11,14] . These shocks, trends, and seasonalities interact with household assets to influence livelihood choices and outcomes. The framework further highlights the role of transforming structures and processes, including policies, institutions, www.extensionjournal.com organizations and social relations, which mediate access to resources and determine how assets are converted into livelihood strategies (Scoones, 1998; Carney, 1998) [52,9] . This institutional dimension distinguishes the SLF from purely economic or farm-level analytical models. The ultimate focus of the DFID-SLF is on livelihood outcomes, such as increased income, improved well-being, reduced vulnerability, enhanced food security, and sustainable use of natural resources (DFID, 1999) [14] .

Importantly, the framework does not prescribe specific livelihood strategies but instead provides a flexible and people-centred approach that can be adapted across contexts, sectors, and scales (Ellis, 2000; Scoones, 2015) [16,53] . As a result, the SLF has been widely applied in empirical livelihood studies, poverty assessments, and development planning across agriculture, natural resource management, and rural development domains (Hussein et al., 1998) [29] .

Fig 2: DFID Sustainable Livelihood framework flowchart

Livelihood Security Index (LSI) Dimensions and its Variables

The Livelihood Security Index (LSI) is grounded in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF), which conceptualizes livelihoods as outcomes of interactions among multiple asset capitals, vulnerability contexts, and institutional processes (Chambers et al., 1992; Scoones, 1998; DFID, 1999; Kedir, 2015) [52,11,14,30] . The LSI transforms this conceptual framework into an empirical tool by operationalizing each livelihood capital through contextspecific indicators and aggregating them into a composite measure of livelihood security (Hussein et al., 1998; Ellis, 2000; Yang et al., 2020) [29,16,67] .

Human Capital

Human capital refers to the skills, knowledge, education, health status, and labour availability that enable households to pursue and sustain livelihood strategies (DFID, 1999; Ellis, 2000) [14] . Within agricultural livelihoods, human capital determines farmers' capacity to adopt technologies, manage production risks, and respond to market and policy signals (Schultz, 1964; Scoones, 1998) [51,52] . Education and farming experience enhance decision-making efficiency and productivity, particularly in technically intensive commercial crops (Feder et al., 1985) [20] . In FCV tobacco systems, human capital assumes heightened importance due to the crop's labour-intensive and skilldependent nature, especially in nursery management, curing, grading, and quality compliance. Studies from Malawi and Zambia showed that household labour availability and farming experience strongly influence tobacco productivity and economic viability (Makoka et al., 2017) [37] . At the same time, international evidence highlights labour scarcity, youth disengagement, and occupational health risks such as green tobacco sickness as significant constraints affecting livelihood security among tobacco growers (WHO, 2017; Magati et al., 2019) [35,66] . These findings underscore the need to incorporate both capability and health-related variables when assessing human capital in FCV tobacco livelihood analysis.

Physical Capital

Physical capital comprises the basic infrastructure and producer goods that support livelihood activities, including irrigation systems, machinery, storage facilities, housing, transport, and energy access (DFID, 1999; Scoones, 1998; Makhetha, 2010) [52,36] . Adequate physical capital reduces production risks, improves efficiency, and enhances access to markets (Ellis, 2000; Reardon et al., 2000) [16,49] . In FCV tobacco cultivation, physical capital is particularly critical due to the need for curing barns, grading sheds, storage facilities, reliable electricity, and fuel sources for curing. Evidence from Zimbabwe demonstrates that the availability and condition of curing infrastructure directly influence leaf quality, production costs, and farm incomes (Scoones et al., 2018) [54] . Studies from Malawi similarly www.extensionjournal.com emphasize that investments in barns and curing technology are central to sustaining tobacco-based livelihoods but also increase farmers' capital exposure and dependency on tobacco markets (Makoka et al., 2017) [37] . These international findings justify the inclusion of FCV-specific physical assets as key indicators in livelihood security analysis.

Financial Capital

Financial capital refers to the financial resources that households can mobilize to pursue livelihood objectives, including income, savings, access to credit, insurance and debt management capacity (DFID, 1999; Ellis, 2000; Morse & McNamara, 2013) [14,16,40] . Financial capital provides liquidity for investment, smoothens consumption, and buffers households against shocks (Hussein et al., 1998) [29] . In commercial tobacco systems, financial capital is often the most visible livelihood dimension due to relatively high gross returns. However, international studies caution that profitability alone does not equate to livelihood security. Empirical analyses from Malawi show that once full costs including labour, credit, and curing inputs are accounted for, net livelihood gains from tobacco are often modest and volatile (Makoka et al., 2017) [37] . Research across Kenya, Zambia, and Malawi further indicates that farmers' continued engagement in tobacco is driven by perceived income stability and access to credit rather than consistently superior profits (Magati et al., 2019) [35] . These findings highlight the importance of capturing not only income but also debt burden, savings, investment capacity, and financial risk exposure in FCV tobacco livelihood analysis.

Natural Capital

Natural capital encompasses the stock of natural resources such as land, soil, water, climate, and biomass upon which agricultural livelihoods depend (Scoones, 1998; DFID, 1999) [52,14] . The quality and sustainability of natural capital directly affect productivity, vulnerability, and long-term livelihood security (Ellis, 2000; FAO, 2003) [16,22] . In FCV tobacco, natural capital is closely linked to soil suitability, rainfall reliability, irrigation access, and availability of biomass for curing. Studies from Zimbabwe and southern Africa document the environmental pressures associated with FCV tobacco cultivation, particularly deforestation and fuel wood scarcity linked to curing requirements (Scoones et al., 2018; WHO, 2017) [55,66] . Evidence from Malawi also highlights farmers' growing vulnerability to climatic variability, including droughts and erratic rainfall, which directly affect tobacco yields and livelihood stability (Makoka et al., 2017) [37] . These international insights reinforce the need to integrate environmental and resource-based indicators into livelihood security assessments of FCV tobacco farmers.

Social Capital

Social capital refers to the social resources upon which households draw in pursuit of their livelihoods, including networks, institutional linkages, trust, collective action, and access to information (DFID, 1999; Putnam, 1993; Scoones, 2015; Altasseb, 2021) [14,53,4] . Social capital facilitates cooperation, reduces transaction costs, and enhances adaptive capacity (Ellis, 2000; Woolcock et al., 2000) [16,65] .

In regulated tobacco systems, social capital is strongly shaped by institutional arrangements involving regulatory bodies, extension agencies, auction platforms, and, in some countries, contract farming companies. International literature from Malawi and Zimbabwe highlights how institutional dependence and market structures create both livelihood security and "lock-in" effects for tobacco farmers, limiting diversification options (Scoones et al., 2018) [55] . Trust in market institutions, access to timely price information, and support during market or policy shocks have been shown to significantly influence livelihood resilience among FCV tobacco growers. Therefore, social capital indicators are indispensable for capturing the institutional and relational dimensions of livelihood security in tobacco-dependent regions.

Livelihood Security Index (LSI) computation

In the livelihood literature, composite indices such as the Livelihood Security Index (LSI) are widely employed to translate the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) into an empirical and comparable measure of household livelihood status (DFID, 1999; Scoones, 1998; Ellis, 2000) [14, 52, 16] . While DFID does not prescribe a fixed computational method, it explicitly encourages contextspecific operationalization of livelihood capitals and the use of aggregated measures to capture multidimensional livelihood outcomes (DFID, 1999) [14] . Consequently, several studies have developed LSI-type indices by integrating indicators representing human, physical, financial, natural, and social capitals into a composite score (Hussein et al., 1998; Hahn et al., 2009) [29,25] . Across empirical livelihood studies, the most common procedure involves normalizing indicators measured in different units and aggregating them into capital-wise subindices, which are subsequently combined into an overall LSI (Hahn et al., 2009) [25] . Typically, indicators are standardized using min-max or z-score normalization, and negative indicators such as indebtedness or illness are reverse-coded to ensure directional consistency (OECD, 2008) [43] . Capital-wise indices are then computed as the arithmetic mean or weighted sum of normalized indicators under each capital. The overall Livelihood Security Index is most commonly expressed as an equal-weighted average of the five capital indices, particularly in review-oriented and policy studies where differential weighting lacks strong empirical justification (Filmer et al., 2001; Hahn et al., 2009) [21,25] .

LSI_i = (HCI_i + PCI_i + FCI_i + NCI_i + SCI_i) / 5

Where: LSI_i = Livelihood Security Index of the i-th household HCI_i = Human Capital Index PCI_i = Physical Capital Index FCI_i = Financial Capital Index NCI_i = Natural Capital Index SCI_i = Social Capital Index Alternatively, some studies apply differential weights to capitals based on empirical relevance or policy priorities, expressed as: www.extensionjournal.com

LSI_i = Σ (W_k * C_ik),

Where, Σ W_k = 1 Here, C_ik represents the k-th capital index and W_k its corresponding weight (OECD, 2008; Hahn et al., 2009) [43 25] . The study conducted by Opiyo et al., (2024) [42] applied the Sustainable Livelihood Framework of tobacco and nontobacco farmers to assess the status of human, natural, social, physical, and financial capitals among rural households. The findings demonstrated (Table 1) that variations in livelihood capital assets significantly influenced livelihood strategies and sustainability outcomes. The study highlighted the usefulness of the SLF as an effective tool for evaluating livelihood resilience and identifying priority areas for rural development interventions. [42] Relevance of SLF for FCV tobacco The DFID Sustainable Livelihoods Framework is especially relevant for analysing FCV tobacco livelihoods because FCV is not simply a crop enterprise it is a capital-intensive, institutionally mediated and risk-exposed livelihood system where household well-being is shaped by the interaction of assets, vulnerability, and governance arrangements rather than by income alone (DFID, 1999; Scoones, 1998) [14,52] . In FCV, the SLF's five-capital lens helps explain why farmers continue tobacco cultivation even under contestation: perceived "viability" depends on a bundle of capitals skills and labour (human), curing barns and infrastructure (physical), credit and liquidity (financial), soil-water-fuelwood dependence (natural), and institutional linkages/market trust (social) that jointly determine resilience and choices. Evidence from African FCV systems shows that institutional arrangements (contract farming, marketing governance, input and credit relationships) can simultaneously stabilize market access and create dependence or "lock-in," making SLF's "transforming structures and processes" component crucial for interpreting livelihood trajectories beyond farm-level profitability (Scoones et al., 2018) [55] . Further, FCV tobacco livelihoods are strongly shaped by the SLF's vulnerability context viz., price and demand shocks, labour scarcity, climate variability, and policy shifts. Therfore, capital based assessment is needed to capture differential coping capacity across farm sizes and regions (Scoones et al., 2018) [55] . The SLF is also well suited to FCV tobacco because it explicitly integrates environmental sustainability into livelihood assessment: curing and cultivation can intensify pressure on forests and other natural resources, linking natural capital status (fuel wood availability, land and water conditions) to livelihood security and long-term viability (WHO, 2017) [66] . Finally, FCV tobacco operates within a contested policy space where public health goals (FCTC) interact with rural livelihood dependence; SLF provides a balanced way to assess trade-offs and identify feasible transition pathways by diagnosing which capitals constrain diversification and which institutional supports would be required for sustainable alternatives (Scoones et al., 2018) [54] .

Livelihood Transformation in Tobacco farming: Evidence across countries

Across countries, tobacco cultivation, particularly under regulated or contract systems has contributed to positive livelihood changes across all five capitals, most visibly in financial and physical capital, followed by human and social capital (Table 2). In low-cash economical countries, tobacco farming can generate cash to pay for necessities like education and health care (Tobacco Atlas, 2025) [60] . In few countries (e.g., Argentina and North Macedonia) farmers seek government subsidies for tobacco, which is counter to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC). However, improvements are heterogeneous and conditional, with long-term sustainability depending on institutional safeguards, labour health, and natural resource management. This capital-wise evidence reinforces the relevance of SLFbased Livelihood Security Index approaches for capturing both gains and vulnerabilities in tobacco-dependent livelihoods. [39] Kenya Employment generation (labour days) Tobacco required ~220-250 labour days/ha, generating seasonal employment ACS (2018)

 Human Capital

Malawi

Skill acquisition through contract farming >70% contract farmers reported improved agronomic and curing skills Makoka et al., (2017) [37] India [55] Malawi Curing & storage assets Contract farmers owned 1.8×more barns than non-contract farmers Makoka et al., (2017) [37] India (FCV regions)

Curing infrastructure Majority of FCV growers own curing barns; During crop season for the year 2022-23, a total of 83,304 growers covering 90,731 barns were registered with Tobacco Board, India for cultivation of FCV tobacco Tobacco Board (2023) [62] Brazil On-farm infrastructure Tobacco households reported higher machinery and housing asset index than non-tobacco farms FAO (2003) [22]  Financial Capital Farmers with access to credit from tobacco companies were 6.12 times more likely to grow tobacco. This indicates the strong institutional influence of contract farming and credit linkages. Access to short-term financial support increased the likelihood of tobacco cultivation by 4.68 times. Tobacco companies often provide advance payments, making tobacco attractive to resource-constrained farmers.

Talukder et al., (2020) [59] Zimbabwe Productivity gain (proxy for income)

Contract farming increased productivity by ~39% Pangapanga Phiri et al., (2023) [45]  [37] India (FCV regions)

Soil-water suitability FCV tobacco concentrated in light soils with assured irrigation, supporting stable yields. Average productivity levels were recorded at 1,360 kg/ha in Southern Light Soils, 1,983 kg/ha in Southern Black Soils, 2,405 kg/ha in Northern Light Soils (assured irrigation), and 1,832 kg/ha in Northern Black Soils, indicating notable variation across soil types and production regions.

Tobacco Board (2022) [61] Brazil Land efficiency Tobacco provides ~4× income per unit land vs food crops FAO (2003) [22]  [37] India (FCV system) Organized marketing 100% FCV marketed through regulated auctions, reducing price uncertainty Tobacco Board (2024) [63] www.extensionjournal.com

Implications for livelihood-oriented interventions and way forward

In India, Flue-Cured Virginia tobacco has been widely acknowledged as a livelihood-supporting commercial crop, particularly in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, where regulated production, auction-based marketing, and institutional oversight have contributed to income stability, employment generation (Srinivas et al., 2020) [57] and asset formation among farming households. Empirical studies indicate that FCV tobacco farmers benefit from assured market access, institutional credit, curing infrastructure, and specialized extension services, enabling better management of production and price risks compared to many competing crops (Kumar et al., 2020) [34] . These features suggest a positive transformation of socio-economic aspects (Hema et al, 2021) [26] particularly in financial and physical variables. However, most Indian evidence remains fragmented and largely confined to partial economic indicators such as costreturn analysis, productivity, or auction price trends, without systematically capturing broader livelihood dimensions such as human capital enhancement, social capital strengthening, or long-term natural resource sustainability (Scoones, 1998; Ellis, 2000) [55,16] . As a result, claims of "positive livelihood transformation" among FCV tobacco farmers in India remain largely inferential rather than empirically quantified in a multidimensional framework. The way forward lies in adopting livelihood-oriented, capital-wise quantitative approaches that are firmly grounded in the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) (DFID, 1999; Scoones, 2015) [14,55] . International literature increasingly demonstrates the value of composite such as the Livelihood Security Index for capturing both gains and vulnerabilities across human, physical, financial, natural, and social capitals in commercial farming systems (Hussein et al., 1998; Hahn et al., 2009; Natarajan et al., 2022) [29,25,41] . Applying such frameworks to FCV tobacco in India would enable robust measurement of livelihood transformation across regions, farm sizes, and institutional contexts, and allow assessment of resilience to policy, market, and climatic shocks. However, the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach has been critiqued for its limited attention to deeper structural factors and power dynamics within and between communities, which are essential for understanding inequalities and designing more effective and inclusive development interventions (De Haan, 2011) [12] . Future research should prioritize large-sample, stratified surveys across major FCV zones, integrate longitudinal or recall-based methods to capture change over time, and move beyond income-centric metrics to include health, skills, institutional linkages, and environmental sustainability (Ellis et al., 2004; Scoones et al., 2018) [16,55] . Generating such evidence is critical for designing balanced, evidencebased interventions ranging from skill development and occupational health safeguards to infrastructure upgrading and phased diversification strategies that safeguard farmer livelihoods while aligning with broader economic, environmental, and public-health objectives (WHO, 2017) [66] .

Conclusion

This review underscores the value of a multidimensional livelihood perspective for understanding FCV tobacco farming beyond income-based assessments. International evidence shows that regulated and contract-based tobacco systems have contributed to positive livelihood outcomes, particularly in financial and physical capital, with spill overs to human and social capital. In India, FCV tobacco has supported farmer livelihoods in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka through stable income, assured markets and institutional support. However, Indian evidence remains largely limited to partial economic indicators, leaving broader livelihood transformations insufficiently quantified. The review identifies a clear research gap in capital-wise, quantitative assessment of positive livelihood change. Application of SLF-based composite indices such as the Livelihood Security Index is essential for informing balanced, livelihood-oriented interventions and sustainable transition strategies.

Acknowledgement

Acknowledgements"Research was supported by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Government of India"

References

1. Abbassi FA, Ullah A, Hashmi MS, Hussain K, Akhter N. The role of livelihood assets' endowment in the adoption of rural livelihood strategies: an intra-regional comparison of district Bhimber, AJ&K. Sarhad J Agric. 2020;36(1):258-271.
2. American Cancer Society. Economics of tobacco farming in Kenya. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2017.
3. American Cancer Society. Economics of tobacco farming in Zambia. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2018.
4. Altasseb HG. Livelihoods and survival strategies among the migrant shoe-shinning children: a case study at Arada Sub-City, Addis Ababa [Master's thesis]. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University; 2021.
5. Ansoms A, McKay A. A quantitative analysis of poverty and livelihood profiles: the case of rural Rwanda. Food Policy. 2010;35(6):584-598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.06.006
6. Baffoe G, Matsuda H. An empirical assessment of rural livelihood assets from gender perspective: evidence from Ghana. Sustain Sci. 2018;13(3):815-828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0483-8
7. Baliwada H, Reddy DD, Krishna SK, Subbaiah Y, Kumari NA. Socio-economic impact of flue-cured tobacco in northern light soils zone of Andhra Pradesh. 2018.
8. Bryceson D. Rural Africa at the crossroads: livelihood practices and policies. ODI Natural Resource Perspectives No. 52. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2000.
9. Carney D. Sustainable rural livelihoods: what contribution can we make? DFID Natural Resource Perspectives No. 12. London: Department for International Development; 1998.
10. Carney D, Drinkwater M, Rusinow T, Neefjes K, Wanmali S, Singh N. Livelihoods approaches compared. In: Forum on Operationalizing Sustainable Livelihoods Approaches: Proceedings (Annex 4); 2000 Mar 7-11;
11. Chambers R, Conway G. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper 296. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex; 1992.
12. De Haan L, Zoomers A. Livelihoods, capitals and livelihood trajectories: a more sociological conceptualization. Prog Dev Stud. 2011;11(2):101-117. https://doi.org/10.1177/146499341001100202
13. De Stagé R, Holloway A, Mullins D, Nchabaleng L, Ward P. Learning about livelihoods: insights from southern Africa. Oxford: Oxfam Publishing; 2002.
14. Department for International Development. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: DFID; 1999.
15. Ellis F, Allison E. Livelihood diversification and natural resources access. LSP Working Paper No. 9. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2004.
16. Ellis F. Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000.
17. Ellis F, Freeman HA. Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2004;32(1):1-17.
18. Ellis F, Freeman HA. Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in sub-Saharan Africa. World Dev. 2004;32(7):1231-1246.
19. Fang YP, Fan J, Shen MY, Song MQ. Sensitivity of livelihood strategy to livelihood capital in mountain areas: empirical analysis based on different settlements in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River, China. Ecol Indic. 2014;38:225-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.11.007
20. Feder G, Just R, Zilberman D. Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Econ Dev Cult Change. 1985;33(2):255-298.
21. Filmer D, Pritchett LH. Estimating wealth effects without expenditure data. Demography. 2001;38(1):115132.
22. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Issues in the global tobacco economy. Rome: FAO; 2003.
23. Frankenberger T. Measuring household livelihood security: an approach for reducing absolute poverty. Food Forum No. 34. Washington, DC; 1996.
24. Gobind HM. Livelihood diversification and opinion polls' analysis: evidence from Tharparkar-Sindh (Pakistan). MPRA Paper No. 8050. Munich: Munich Personal RePEc Archive; 2008. Available from: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8050/
25. Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO. The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change -a case study in Mozambique. Glob Environ Change. 2009;19(1):7488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.11.002
26. Hema B, Reddy DD, Reddy KV, Srinivas A, Kasturi Krishna S. Impact assessment of flue-cured Virginia tobacco in Mysore and Hassan districts of Karnataka. Indian J Ext Educ. 2021;57(2):76-81. https://doi.org/10.5958/2454-552X.2021.00072.4
27. Hema B, Reddy KV, Reddy DD. Significance of BRICS in the global tobacco sector: a critical analysis. Tob Res. 2017;43(2):47-55.
28. Huang L, Yang L, Tuyến NT, Colmekcioglu N, Liu J. Factors influencing the livelihood strategy choices of rural households in tourist destinations. J Sustain Tour. 2021;30(4):875-896.
29. Hussein K, Nelson J. Sustainable livelihoods and livelihood diversification. IDS Working Paper 69. Sussex: Institute of Development Studies; 1998.
30. Kedir KB. Livelihoods and coping strategies of rural households in Abela Lida peasant association of Shebedino district, southern Ethiopia [Master's thesis]. Pretoria: University of South Africa; 2015.
31. Kibwage JK, Odondo AJ, Momanyi GM. Assessment of livelihood assets and strategies among tobacco and nontobacco growing households in South Nyanza region, Kenya. Afr J Agric Res. 2009;4(4):294-304.
32. Kollmair M, Gamper S. The sustainable livelihood approach: input paper for the integrated training course of NCCR North-South. Zurich: Development Study Group, University of Zurich; 2002.
33. Kumar P, Reddy D, Narayana D. Asset creation and rural transformation through high-value cash crops: evidence from tobacco belts. J Agrar Stud. 2020;18(1):91-112.
34. Kumar R, Rao N, Raju S. Technological change in tobacco farming and livelihood impacts. Agric Syst. 2020;178:102736.
35. Magati P, Otieno D, Nyangito H. Livelihood dynamics and tobacco farming in East and Southern Africa. Afr J Agric Econ. 2019;14(3):211-230.
36. Makhetha P. Exploring the livelihood strategies employed by street trading selling vegetables and fruits along Noord Street [Master's thesis]. Johannesburg: University of the Witwatersrand; 2010.
37. Makoka D, Lewin P, Soko J. The economics of tobacco farming in Malawi: household-level evidence. Tob Control. 2017;26(6):634-640.
38. Makoka D, Nyirenda J, Msukwa C. Tobacco livelihoods and household welfare in Malawi. J Rural Stud. 2017;52:45-56.
39. Mapfumo A, Mushunje A. Factors affecting livelihood strategies of smallholder tobacco and non-tobacco farmers and off-farm households benefitting from land reform in Zimbabwe. J Agribus Rural Dev. 2022;64(2):153-160.
40. Morse S, McNamara N. The theory behind the sustainable livelihood approach. In: Morse S, McNamara N, editors. Sustainable livelihood approach. New York: Springer; 2013. p. 15-60.
41. Natarajan N, Newsham A, Rigg J, Suhardiman D. A sustainable livelihoods framework for the 21st century. World Dev. 2022;155:105898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105898
42. Opiyo SB, Opinde G, Letema S. A perspective of sustainable livelihood framework in analysis of sustainability of rural community livelihoods: evidence from Migori River watershed in Kenya. Int J River Basin Manag. 2024;22(4):627-643. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2023.2216019
43. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD; 2008.
44. Pandey R, Jha SK, Alatalo JM, Archie KM, Gupta AK. www.extensionjournal.com Sustainable livelihood framework-based indicators for assessing climate change vulnerability and adaptation for Himalayan communities. Ecol Indic. 2017;79:338-346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.03.047
45. Pangapanga-Phiri I, Chirwa E, Manda J. Livelihood implications of tobacco farming in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from Malawi. Heliyon. 2023;9:e17865.
46. Perodi MA, Schneider S, Bonato AA. Diversification for development: theoretical basis for diversification of rural livelihoods. Paper presented at: WHO Meeting on Economically Sustainable Alternatives to Tobacco Growing; 2008 May; Mexico.
47. Pradhan S, Pande AK, Bisht K. Constraints confronted by small farmers in achieving livelihood security in Shahpura Block of Jabalpur District (M.P.), India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(6):2108-2116. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.906.258
48. Putnam R. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1993.
49. Reardon T, Barrett C. Agroindustrialization, globalization, and international development: an overview of issues, patterns, and determinants. Agric Econ. 2000;23(3):195-205.
50. Reddy KV, Reddy DD, Hema B, Srinivas A. Tobacco production in Asia: impact of WHO-FCTC. Tob Res. 2019;45(1):27-32.
51. Schultz T. Transforming traditional agriculture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 1964.
52. Scoones I. Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies; 1998.
53. Scoones I. Sustainable livelihoods and rural development. J Dev Stud. 2015;51(5):456-474.
54. Scoones I, Mavedzenge B, Murimbarimba F, Sukume C. Livelihoods after land reform in Zimbabwe: the role of tobacco. J Agrar Change. 2018;18(2):370-389.
55. Scoones I, Mavedzenge B, Murimbarimba F, Sukume C. Tobacco, contract farming, and agrarian change in Zimbabwe. J Agrar Change. 2018;18(1):22-42.
56. Solesbury W. Sustainable livelihoods: a case study of the evolution of DFID policy. Vol. 217. London: Overseas Development Institute; 2003.
57. Srinivas A, Reddy DD, Reddy KV, Hema B, Kasturi Krishna S. Socio-economic impact assessment of Motihari tobacco in West Bengal. Tob Res. 2020;46(2):69-74.
58. Sullivan C. Calculating a water poverty index. World Dev. 2002;30(7):1195-1210.
59. Talukder A, Haq I, Ali M, Drope J. Factors associated with cultivation of tobacco in Bangladesh: a multilevel modelling approach. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4277.
60. Tobacco Atlas. Tobacco farming: profits and losses. 2025. Available from: https://tobaccoatlas.org/topics/tobacco-production/
61. Tobacco Board. Annual report 2021-22. New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India; 2022.
62. Tobacco Board. Annual report 2022-2023. New Delhi: Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India; 2023. Available from: https://www.scribd.com/document/737271766/Tobaccoboard-audit-report-AR-2022-23
63. Tobacco Board. [Homepage on the Internet]. 2024. Available from: http://tobaccoboard.in/
64. United Nations Development Programme. Guidance note: application of the sustainable livelihoods framework in development projects. Panama City: UNDP Regional Centre for Latin America and the Caribbean; 2017.
65. Woolcock M, Narayan D. Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res Obs. 2000;15(2):225-249.
66. World Health Organization. Tobacco and environmental sustainability: issues and implications. Geneva: WHO; 2017.
67. Yang Y, Wu F, Zhang Q, Hong J, Dong C. Is it sustainable to implement a regional payment for ecosystem service programme for 10 years? An empirical analysis from the perspective of household livelihoods. Ecol Econ. 2020;176:106746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106746
68. Yin S, Yang X, Chen J. Adaptive behavior of farmers' livelihoods in the context of human-environment system changes. Habitat Int. 2020;100:102185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2020.102185.