Does subjective well‐being matter when assessing the impacts of irrigation infrastructure? Empirical evidence from Madhya Pradesh, India

Abstract

Investments to rehabilitate irrigation infrastructure aim to enhance climate resilience and improve farmers' livelihoods in the face of hydrological risks. Studies seeking to assess the impacts from investments in irrigation primarily focus on yield and income‐related poverty measures. This approach provides an incomplete picture of the distributional implications of investments, such as the impact of rehabilitated irrigation infrastructure on the subjective well‐being of farmers. Drawing on data from 707 farmers in Madhya Pradesh, India, we explore whether investments to rehabilitate irrigation infrastructure are associated with changes in subjective well‐being among smallholders. Our findings show a positive relationship between farmers with access to rehabilitated surface irrigation and well‐being improvements. Results reveal that farmers in areas with rehabilitated irrigation canals experience improvements in subjective well‐being which are 20%–30% higher in comparison to farmers in areas without rehabilitated canals. When results are disaggregated, we find a larger positive effect on well‐being for farmers in deficient‐rainfall areas compared to average‐ or high‐rainfall areas. The integration of contextual factors related to subjective well‐being into future assessments of infrastructure investments in India can enhance knowledge of the multidimensional benefits of canal irrigation among diverse farming groups facing differing degrees of hydrological risk.