06
CHANGES IN LEVELS OF MAIZE PRODUCTIVITY IN HIMACHAL PRADESH:
1990-91 TO 2014-15
Shivjeet Kaur,1 Jaswinder Kaur2 and K. S. Sohal3
1

Assistant Professor, Research 2Scholar and 3Former Professor and Head,
Department of Geography, Punjabi University, Patiala (Punjab) India
Email: kuljitsinghsohal@yahoo.co.in

How to cite this paper:

Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder
Kaur and Sohal, K. S. (2022)
changes in levels of maize
productivity
inHimachal
Pradesh:1990-91 to 2014-15,
Journal of Global Resources,
Vol. 08 (01)DOI:
10.46587/JGR.2022.v08i01.006

Received: 22 Sep. 2021
Reviewed: 04 Oct. 2021
Revised: 05 Nov. 2021
Final Accepted: 14 Nov. 2021

Abstract: The chief objective of the present study is to reveal
spatial patterns of maize productivity and Changes in Himachal
Pradesh during 1990-91 to 2014-15. For achieving this purpose,the study is divided into three parts. First part deals with spatial
patterns of maize productivity. It is found that the index value ofmaize productivity varied from minimum of 47.55 percent in Spiti
tehsil to 155.90 percent in Churah tehsil in 1990-91. While in
2002-03, it varied from 47.45 percent in Lahaul tehsil to 143.14
percent in Churah tehsil. Whereas in 2014-15, it is lowest of 47.97
percent in Spiti tehsil and highest of 141.51 percent in Churah
tehsil. It is also observed that in all time periods, magnitude ofmaize productivity starts declining from west to east. In second
part, it is found that in Himachal Pradesh, the highest index valueof maize productivity has declined from 150.90 percent to 141.15
percent during 1990-91 to 2014-15 and registered overall
negative change of 8.39 percent index value. Whereas the lowest
index value of maize productivity has increased from 47.55
percent in 1990-91 to 47.97 percent in 2014-15 and experience
0.42 percent increase in lowest index value of maize productivity
during study period, thus the gap between high and low
magnitude of maize productivity has minimized which shows thatsign of healthy maize cultivation. In third part, major problems are
identified and suggestions are made to solve these problems forincreasing the maize productivity in the state. The present study
is empirical in nature and based on secondary sources of data.
Three time periods are taken and averages are derived for eachtime period, because 1990-91 is the year of liberalization era and2002-03 and 2014-15 are post liberalization period. Singh (1976),
technique is used for deriving the results and choropleth method
is applied for mapping the results.
Key words: Productivity, Yield Index, Patterns, Magnitude,
Index Value, Minimized.

Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 54

Introduction
The term crop productivity is used in different meanings. Sometimes, it defines as output, inputoutput ratio in relation to land, labour and capital employed in agriculture. It is much acceptedview that it is the ability of a production system that how it is more economically efficient. Thus,
crop productivity means the measure of efficiency of an agricultural production system which
employs land, capital and labour (Saddiqui & Taufique, 2005). It is the off-spring of actions,reactions and interactions among various physical and non-physical factors. It is also a dynamic
concept, because crop productivity increases with modification of natural environment anddevelopment in socio-economic environment i.e., extent of irrigation, farm mechanization,
improved verities of seeds, consumption of chemical fertilizers, agricultural infrastructure,marketing facilities, road density, agricultural research and extension services, government
policies, etc. (Singh, 1976 and Singh,1998). Hussain (2009) has argued that ‘‘crop productivity /agricultural productivity’’ is the product of interactions among physical, socio-economic andcultural factors. Thus, to overcome the requirement of ever-increasing demand of food grains, it
becomes necessary to raise crop productivity. Being dynamic concept, it can increase or
decreases over time. Hence, if the natural environment is favorable but socio-economic factors
are less developed, then magnitude will be moderate but if the physical and non-physicalenvironments are unfavorable, the crop productivity would be low and vice-versa. Sohal (2004),
stated that occurrences of changes in either physical factors or socio-economic environment
affect the levels of crop-productivity. Moreover, its study is vital for identifying regions of high,moderate and low agricultural / crop productivity. Thus, all these developments will certainly help
in minimizing the gap between agricultural highly developed and lagging behind regions. The
measurement of agricultural productivity enables a comparison of relative performance of farmers
between farms, between the types of farming and between geographical regions. A comparisonof crop productivity goes on to the heart of economic performance and can also provide guidancefor planning and development decisions (Dutta, 2012), (Prasad and Tripathi, 2008), Ali and Ali(2007). Crop productivity is a component of regional development, because higher levels ofdevelopment are associated with higher levels of agricultural / crop productivity and vice versa(Munir, 1988), Chatterji and Maitreya, 1964).
Study Area
Himachal Pradesh has 1.69 percent of India’s total reporting area and is situated in north-west of
the country. Its longitudinal and latitudinal extent lie between 750 40' 55" E longitudes to 790 04'20"
E longitudes and 30022'44" N latitude to 330 12' 40" N latitude. Its mean minimum annual
temperature is -40 C and mean maximum annual temperature of 300 C. Average annual
precipitation of Himachal Pradesh ranges from 700 mm. to 3000 mm. According to 2011 census
its total population is 68,56,509 persons. It has 85 tehsils and 12 districts.
Objectives• To know the spatial patterns of maize productivity during 1990-91, 2002-03 and 2014-15.
• To find out changes in maize productivity during study period.
• To identify factors affecting changes in maize productivity.
Methodology and Sources of Data
The present study is empirical in nature and based on secondary sources of data. Three time periods
are taken and averages are derived for each time period. After reviewing the other techniques of
productivity, it is found that Singh (1976), technique is more useful, because its results are more valid
as compare to other techniques. Thus, Singh (1976), technique is used for deriving the results andchoropleth method is applied for mapping the results. Singh (1976) technique is as follow:
Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 55

Cpi =

Ci + Yi2
Cpi = Stands for Crop Productivity Index.
Ci = Stands for Concentration Index
Yi = Stands for Yield Index.
The crop concentration index of maize is calculated by using following formula:𝐶Ci= 𝑝𝑒 × 100
𝐶𝑝𝑟

Ci = Concentration index.
Cpe = Percent area of crop in an enumeration unit.
Cpr = Percent area of crop in the entire region.
While the formula for calculating maize yield index is as below:
Yi= Yae × 100
Yar
Yi = Maize yield index.
Yae = yield in an enumeration unit.
Yar = yield of crop under entire region.
By using the above-mentioned technique, the patterns of maize crop productivity andchanges are individually discussed for the years 1990-91, 2002-03, 2014-15 and changes in thispaper.
Fig. 1
76

0

E

77

0

78

0

0

79 E

Him a ch a l Pra d es h
Ad m in st r at ive D i visio n s

N
W

E

0

0

33 N

Pang i33 N

S

Chu rahSalo on i

Lah au lDal ho usi e
Cha mbaBhar mau r

Bhat tiya t

Nur purShah pu r
Dha rmsh al a

Jawa li

Baij na th

Mana li
Spiti

In do raKang raPala mp ur

Fa te hp ur0

Deh ra32

32

Baro hJog ind ern ag ar
Lad
Bhar ol
Jais ing hp ur
Padd ha r

Jasw an
Kot laJawa la muk hi
Rak kar

Suja np urSarka gh at

Nad au nAmbBali Ch owk i

Bhor anj

Banj arChc hyot

Bald wa ra

Nic har

Barsa rGh uma rwi n

Har oli

Pooh

Mand i

Ham irp ur
Bang an aUna

0

Kull uKhun dya nSund ern ag ar

Jan dut ta

Kalp aTh un ag

Moor ang

Ram purNirm an d

Nih riNai na D evi ji

Karso g

Bila spu r
Sada rKuma rsai n

Chi rga on

Suni

Sang laDod rak war

Roh ruArki
Nal ag arh

Shim la (R )Th eo g

Kotkha i
Jub bal033 N

Sola nBadd i

Kand ag ha t

0

33 N

Shim la(U)
Cho pa l

Kasa uli

Raj ga rh
Pach ha dRen uka ji
Shil la i

Nah an0

Paon ta Sah ib

40
K ms

0

76 E

0

77

0

78

0

79 E

Sou rc e : Ce ns us o f In di a, 2 0 1 1The spatio-temporal changes in maize productivity are discussed as follows:
A. Levels of Maize Productivity: 1990-91
In Himachal Pradesh, the index value of maize productivity varied from 47.55 percent in Spiti
tehsil to 155.90 percent in Churah tehsil during 1990-91, which reflected high spatial variations in
the levels of maize productivity. For knowing factors responsible for spatial variations in levels ofmaize productivity fig. 2 is mapped which displays the following three categories:
1. Category of High Magnitude (> 115 index value):
There were 21 tehsils and 24.71 percent of total occurrences in this category. It found in two belts.
First belt lied in four tehsils of Chamba district namely Churah, Chamba, Salooni and Dalhousie.
Here, the concentration index of maize is very high as well as the yield index. These were
Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 56

traditionally maize growing areas of this category. In the case of second belt which is elongatedin shape and run from central-western parts to southern parts covering 17 tehsils of Sirmaur,
Solan, Bilaspur Sadar, Hamirpur and Mandi district. These tehsils were Bilaspur Sadar, Jandutta,
Barsar, Nadaun, Sujanpur, Rakkar, Sundernagar, Kasauli, Baddi, Solan, Arki, Pacchad, Rajgarh,Nahan, Paonta Sahib, Renuka ji and Shillai. All these tehsils were also major maize growing
areas, where due to favorable geo-climatic and socio-economic conditions, farmers preferredmaize cultivation and at the same time soils were also fertile, which helped in increasing the yield
per unit area. Hence, owing to all these factors, this belt had also high magnitude of maize
productivity.

2. Category of Moderate Magnitude (85-115 index value):
41 tehsils formed this category which contained 48.23 percent of total occurrences. Here,index value varied between 85-115 and these were also important maize growing areas. It had
one belt and one patch. The belt of this category had 40 tehsils namely Bhattiyat, Nurpur, Indora,
Jawali, Fatehpur, Dehra, Jaswan Kotla, Jawalamukhi, Khundiyan, Baroh, Jaisinghpur, Kullu,
Banjar, Nirmand, Mandi, Sarkaghat, Paddhar, Jogindernagar, Lad-Bharol, Sandhol, Baldwara,
Thunag, Bali-Chowki, Chchyot, Karsog, Nihri, Suni, Shimla (R), Shimla (U), Theog, Kandaghat,
Una, Amb, Bangana and Haroli. The patch of this category covered Bharmaur tehsil of Chamba
district. Here, maize concentration index is high in majority of the tehsils, but yield index varied
from low to moderate because of poor irrigation facilities.
3. Category of Low Magnitude (< 85 index value):
It comprised of 23 tehsils and covered districts of Lahaul & Spiti, Kinnaur and eastern parts ofShimla and some tehsils of Kullu, Chamba and Kangra districts. The reasons for low magnitudeof maize productivity in tehsils of Pangi, Lahaul, Spiti, Manali, Kalpa, Moorang, Pooh, Nichar,
Sangla, Rampur, Kumarsain, Kotkhai, Jubbal, Rohru, Chopal, Chirgaon and Dodrakwar wereheavy snowfall during summers, mountainous terrain, significant area under fruits, vegetables
and wheat. While dominance of rice cultivation was responsible in tehsils of Baijanth, Palampur,
Dharmsahala, Shahpur, Kangra and Nagrota Bagwan. In this category area under maize
cultivation was very low which was responsible for low concentration of maize productivity, while
the yield index was moderate and ultimately resulted into low magnitude of maize productivity.

Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 57

Table 01: Levels of Maize Crop Productivity: 1990-91 to 2014-15#

Tehsils

1990-91

2002-032014-15#

Tehsils

1990-91

2002-032014-15

1 Bilaspur Sadar
2 Jandutta
3 Naina Devi ji
4 Ghumarwin
5 Pangi
6 Churah
7 Chamba
8 Salooni
9 Dalhousie
10 Bhattiyat
11 Bharmaur
12 Hamirpur
13 Bhoranj
14 Barsar
15 Nadaun
16 Sujanpur
17 Baijnath
18 Palampur
19 Jaisinghpur
20 Dharmshala
21 Shahpur
22 Nurpur
23 Indora
24 Jawali
25 Fatehpur
26 Dehra
27 Jaswan Kotla
28 Rakkar
29 Jawalamukhi
30 Khundiyan
31 Kangra
32 NagrotaBagwan
33 Baroh
34 Kapla
35 Moorang
36 Pooh37 Nichar
38 Sangla
39 Kullu
40 Manali
41 Banjar
42 Nirmand
43 Lahaul

116.18115.03106.82
107.6468.29
150.9
136.28130.28130.09108.66102.27113.3490.52
115.91117.22148.63
68.04
71.85
99.33
63.26
60.31
85.47
85.49
95.57
92.3
106.43106.61117.36109.96
99.29
72.16
78.69
97.77
59.21
55.05
49.1
56.57
62.26
86.98
80.26
88.36
91.88
50.26

110.5
124.2794.16
116.2564.63
143.14116.5
124.27121.29115.46
91.59
123.1
85.62
119.24120.15119.21
52.45
63.87
98.86
54.1
61.07
94.5
90.61
95.3
90.8
99.97
97.05
117.53103.97
97.74
68.88
65.43
91.69
57.68
55.18
50.68
57.67
52.39
94.44
88.7
103.01101.4337.45

85.33
131.8685.07
120.3955.16
141.51131.96117.16
101.65107.9
48.55
133.98102.59115.29115.91116.89
47.42
60.55
98.61
50.34
56.21
93.91
86.12
94.8
89.86
99.75
86.48
120.75105.82
99.1
63.07
57.46
64.29
50.88
52.07
48.73
55.04
50.19
125.53
94.77
115.44104.15
5 0.39

44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

Spite
Mandi
Sundernagar
Sarkaghat
Jogindernagar
KarsogChchyot
ThunagBaldwara
Bali Chowki
Sandhol
PaddharNihri
Lad-Bharol
RampurKumarsain
Suni
Shimla (R)Shimla (U)Theog
Kotkhai
JubbalRohru
Chirgaon
Dodrakwar
Chopal
Nahan
Paonta Sahib
PachhadRajgarh
Shillai
Renuka ji
Solan
Nalagarh
Kasauli
Baddi
Arki
Kandaghat
Una
Amb
Bangana
HaroliRegion’s
Average

47.55
107.99118.0893.84
85.27
100.57108.3896.49
93.68
102.19102.3
111.96104.21
90.8
68.06
79.14
97.53
98.53
97.14
89.94
72.58
64.94
69.53
60.32
52.27
79.46
116.16115.97115.49115.37120.95115.33120.95103.4
115.86115.16
122.67106.17111.15108.81111.43110.95100.0037.46
116.63121.3298.78
92.58
117.04120.47115.1
98.97
117.7693.6
117.84123.99
85.26
73.67
85.08
91.8
105.99104.51
85.21
61.39
70.52
71.74
69.41
57.69
80.25
99.7
89.53
85.23
85.78
102.53
94.5
90.78
87.96
99.33
92.04
94.91
86.74
92.19
110.02109.0999.68
100.0047.97
92.48
106.9885.39
85.18
112.21117.04
95.16
86.24
117.31
88.67
104.38112.36
85.95
60.06
55.67
56.53
85.62
85.57
59.89
49.88
49.58
51.36
57.99
51.53
72.87
104.89
85.79
85.71
85.43
107.65
90.33
93.08
85.61
97.35
98.11
105.1492.05
102.19109.2
108.8
100.82100.00Source: Tehsil Wise Lal Kitabs of Himachal Pradesh: 1989-92, 2001-04 and 2013-16.

B. Levels of Maize Productivity: 2002-03
In 2002-03, index value of crop productivity was highly variable because it ranged from 47.45
percent in Lahaul tehsil to 143.14 percent in Churah tehsil in the study region. To know its
distributional pattern and factors responsible for an attempt is made with the help of fig. 3 andtable which show the following three categories:
1. Areas of High Magnitude of Maize Productivity (> 115 index value):
It had 20 tehsils which comprised of 23.53 percent of total occurrences. There were two belts ofthis category. First belt lied in central parts containing 15 tehsils namely Jandutta, Ghumarwin,
Hamirpur, Barsar, Nadaun, Sujanpur, Rakkar, Paddhar, Mandi, Sundernagar, Karsog, Nihri,
Thunag, Bali-Chowki and Nihri. These areas had favorable both geo-climatic conditions andJournal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 58

socio-economic environment for maize productivity. Here, both indices of concentration and yield
were recorded high which resulted into high levels of maize concentration. Second belt was
confined to extreme north-western parts of Chamba district namely Churah, Chamba, Salooni,
Dalhousie and Bhattiyat. Here, low to moderate gradient of land, high rainfall, lack of irrigation
facilities, traditionally maize growing areas, stapple food, etc. were responsible for high index
value of maize productivity.

2. Areas of Moderate Magnitude of Maize Productivity (85-115 index value):
44 tehsils formed category of moderate levels of maize productivity, which had 51.76 percent of
the total occurrences and was the largest category in size. It was largely confined to western andcentral parts of Himachal Pradesh. It had one belt and one patch. Reasons for moderate
proportion in levels of maize productivity were presence of hills and piedmont areas with small
mountains, low to high rainfall, lack of sufficient irrigation facilities, traditionally maize growing
areas, hardly any cultivation of fruits and vegetables during summers, etc. particularly in thetehsils of Kangra, Una, Bilaspur, Hamirpur and Mandi district namely Bilaspur Sadar, Naina Devi
ji, Bhoranj, Jawalamukhi, Khuniyan, Baroh, Nurpur, Indora, Jawali, Fatehpur, Jaswan Kotla,
Dehra, Jaisinghpur, Jogindernagar, Lad-Bharol, Sandhol, Sarkaghat, Baldwara, Una, Amb,
Bangana and Haroli. While in case of tehsils lied in south-western parts, the moderate proportion
was largely owing to cultivation of rice in case of Paonta Sahib and Nahan tehsils, but other tehsilsof Sirmaur and Solan districts and 5 tehsils of Shimla district namely Rampur, Kumarsain, Suni,
Shimla (R), Shimla (U) and Theog, vegetables and fruits were responsible for moderatemagnitude of maize productivity. Whereas in tehsils of Kullu district namely Kullu, Manali, Banjar
and Nirmand, the moderate levels of maize productivity were owing to the cultivation of rice, fruits,
vegetables, etc. Thus, all these factors became responsible for moderate index value of maize
productivity. While in case of Bharmaur tehsils of Chamba district, the reason for moderate levelsof maize productivity was some areas under rice which were adjoining to Palampur valley. But incentral and upper parts of these tehsils, maize was predominant. Hence, these tehsils hadrecorded moderate magnitude of maize productivity.

Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 59

3. Areas of Low Magnitude of Maize Productivity (< 85 index value):
Only 21 tehsils had low level of maize productivity and reasons for low levels of maize productivity
in case of Pangi, Lahaul and Spiti tehsils were mountainous areas with heavy snow, which hardly
melt during summers, low temperature, less fertile soils, etc. did not allow the flourishing maize
cultivation. Thus, low levels of maize productivity were found. Whereas in tehsils of Kinnaur district
and western half of Shimla district namely Kalpa, Moorang, Pooh, Nichar, Sangla, Rampur,
Kotkhai, Jubbal, Rohru, Chirgaon, Dodrakwar and Chopal, the index value of maize productivity
was largely responsible for hilly to mountainous terrain, moderate to heavy snowfall, which
generally melt during summers, etc. In such geo-climatic conditions, farmers preferred fruit
plantation and wheat, millets and vegetables cultivation, etc. All these factors had led to low
magnitude of maize productivity. But, in 6 tehsils of Kangra district tehsils namely Baijnath,
Palampur, Dharmshala, Shahpur, Kangra and Nagrota Bagwan, where Palampur valley exists
had gentle gradient of land, fertile soils, high rainfall, irrigation from kuhls, etc. created excellent
conditions for cultivation of rice which was more remunerative than maize, thus farmers had
preferred rice to maize, which led to low magnitude of maize productivity.
C. Levels of Maize Productivity: 2014-15
Magnitude of maize productivity in Himachal Pradesh during 2014-15 varies from 47.97 percent
in Spiti tehsil to highest of 141.51 percent in Churah tehsil, which indicates very high range in theindex value of maize productivity. There are different physical and socio-economic factors, which
are responsible for these high variations, because these two major factors are heterogeneously
distributed in the study region. For studying and understanding the uneven spatial patters in levelsof maize productivity in Himachal Pradesh during 2014-15. Fig. 4 is mapped which exhibits three
categories and an attempt is made to discuss these below:
1. High Category of Maize Productivity Index Value (> 115 percent):
It contains 14 tehsils. It is found in three belts. First belt has seven tehsilsof Hamirpur and Bilaspur districts which are namely Jandutta, Ghumarwin, Hamirpur, Barsar,
Nadaun, Sujanpur and Rakkar. These are traditionally maize growing areas where its cultivation
is done on shallow and moderate mountainous slopes, soils are suitable for its cultivation,
temperature is quite high during May-June which is ideal for its growth followed by moderate tohigh rainfall supplemented by no water logging because of shallow and moderate slopes, stapple
food, etc. These factors create ideal conditions for maize cultivation. Thus, farmers preferred it
because rice which is another kharif crop cannot be grown successfully because of lack ofadequate irrigation and hilly and mountainous terrain. Second belt comprised three tehsils of
Chamba district and situated in north-western parts. These tehsils are Churah, Chamba andSalooni. These are remained dominant maize growing areas of Himachal Pradesh throughout the
study period. Here, geo-climatic conditions and ideal for the growing of maize crop. Though, thereis nearly absence of irrigation facilities, but high rainfall makes excellent conditions for its
cultivation supplemented by stapled food and traditional maize growing areas, etc. As a result,
this belt is remained as dominant maize growing areas of the study region. Third belt lies in four
tehsils of Kullu and Mandi districts and namely Kullu, Banjar, Chchyot and Bali-Chowki. These
areas were not maize dominant during in 1990-91 and 2002-03, but in 2014-15 these havebecome predominant maize growing areas and as a result both concentration and yield arerecorded high which led to high magnitude of maize productivity.
2. Moderate Category of Maize Productivity Index Value (85-115 percent):
It is the largest category which lies in western half of the study region. 44 tehsils and 51.76
percent of total occurrences formed this category. There are different reasons in different tehsils
Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 60

which are responsible for moderate category of maize productivity. In case of Sirmaur district, itsconcentration index is moderate, because of the cultivation of rice and vegetables during summer
season and resulted into moderate magnitude of maize productivity. But, in tehsils of Hamirpur,
Una, Bilaspur and Kangra districts the reasons for high concentration are low to moderate rainfall,undulating, dissected, hilly and low mountains, high temperature, lack of irrigation facilities, etc.
All these enthused the farmers to cultivate maize crop, which led to high concentration index ofmaize crop, but yield index of maize is found low to moderate, because of less fertile soils and as
a result moderate index value of maize productivity is noted. But, in tehsils of Kullu and Mandi
districts both concentration and yield index are found moderate. Moreover, in these districts,
considerable area under either rice or vegetables or fruits is noted. Therefore, owing to all thesefactors in this part of the category, the levels of maize productivity are moderate.

3. Low Category of Maize Productivity Index Value (< 85 percent):
In the category of low levels of maize productivity, there are 27 tehsils and31.76 percent of the total occurrences. Here, in case of Pangi, Lahaul, Spiti, Kalpa, Moorang,
Pooh, Nichar, Sangla, Rampur, Kumarsain, Suni, Theog, Kotkhai, Jubbal, Rohru, Chirgaon,
Dodrakwar, Chopal and Karsog, the reasons for low levels of maize productivity are heavy
snowfall and late melting of snow in summer season, low temperature, etc. do not allow healthy
growth of maize crop, which require moderate to high temperature during its growing period. Thus,
farmers in such temperate conditions and mountainous terrain grow vegetables, fruits, millets,
etc. Owing to all these factors, area under maize is low which yield low concentration index andresulted into low magnitude of maize productivity. But, in case of tehsils of Bharmaur, Baijnath,
Palampur, Dharmshala, Shahpur, Knagra, Nagrota Bagwan and Baroh, the low levels of maize
productivity are owing to presence of Palampur valley, high rainfall, fertile soils, moderate to hightemperature, high extent of irrigation, which is generally obtained from Kuhl irrigation, etc. In suchconditions farmers preferred rice cultivation in kharif season as compare to maize, which led tovery small proportion of small area under maize crop and led to low levels of maize productivity.
D. Volume of Change in Levels of Maize Productivity: 1990-91 to 2014-15
Changes in maize productivity are the combined result of changes in socio-economic and cultural
factors supplemented by leveling of some land near Shiwaliks etc. For explaining spatio-temporal

Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 61changes in levels of maize productivity, help is taken from figures 2 to 4 and tables 1 and 2 whichyield the following points:
1. In 1990-91, the category of high magnitude of maize productivity was largely confined to northwestern and south-western parts, but in 2002-03 some tehsils of south-western parts of highcategory had joined the category of moderate maize productivity, while high category of maize
productivity shifted to central-western parts by capturing two tehsils of each Mandi and Bilaspur
districts which had moderate productivity in 1990-91. North-western belt of high category had
expanded in its size and the number of tehsils increased from 4 to 5 during 1990-91 to 2002-03.
But overall number of tehsils had declined from 21 to 20 during 1990-91 to 2002-03. While during
2002-03 to 2014-15, the north-western belt of high category has seen decrease in its number oftehsils from 5 to 3. But central belt has shifted towards east capturing 2 tehsils namely Kullu andBanjar of Kullu district, where the level of maize productivity was moderate in 2002-03, whereas
loss of some tehsils in western Kullu and Mandi districts. Though the belt of high category whichlies in the tehsils of Hamirpur and Bilaspur districts has remained almost the same. Hence during
2002-03 to 2014-15, number of tehsils in high category has declined from 20 to 14.
2. The moderate category had 41 tehsils in 1990-91, which increased to 44 in 2002-03 and gained
3 tehsils which were snatched from both low and high categories. But the number of tehsils inmoderate category had remained same from during 2002-03 to 2014-15. Whereas, the numberof tehsils during 1990-91 to 2014-15 in moderate category has increased from 41 to 44.
3. Low category of maize productivity had lost 2 tehsils during 1990-91 to 2002-03 to the categoryof moderate magnitude. The major areas of this category had remained almost same which werelying in tehsils of the districts of Kinnaur, Shimla, Lahaul & Spiti, Kangra and Chamba. But in2014-15, the number of tehsils has increased, because 4 tehsils of moderate category namely
Bharmaur, Suni, Karsog and Theog have shifted from moderate to low category, owing to shift ofarea from maize to fruits and vegetables and consequently the number of tehsils has increased
from 21 to 27 during 2002-03 to 2014-15.
4. Overall spatio-temporal changes during 1990-91 to 2014-15 have noted some changes inlevels of maize productivity. The seven tehsils of high category (>115 index value) have shiftedto moderate category. While central parts of moderate category which include tehsils of Kullu,
Banjar, Chchyot, Bali-Chowki have shifted from high category to moderate category. Whereas,
Bharmaur, Suni, Karsog, Baroh and Jawalamukhi tehsils have transferred from moderate to low.
While Manali tehsil has shifted from low to moderate. As a result of these changes, the numberof tehsils in high category has declined from 21 to 14, tehsils of moderate category have increased
from 41 to 44 and tehsils in low category have increased from 23 to 27 during 1990-91 to 201415.
5. During study period in Himachal Pradesh, the highest index value of maize productivity has
declined from 150.90 percent in 1990-91 to 143.14 percent in 2002-03 and further decreased to141.15 percent in 2014-15, thus recorded a decrease of 6.76 index value during 1990-91 to 200203, 1.63 index value during 2002-03 to 2014-15 and overall negative change of 8.39 index value
during 1990-91 to 2014-15. Whereas the lowest index of overall maize crop productivity was 47.55
percent, 47.45 percent, and 47.97 percent during 1990-91, 2002-03 and 2014-15 respectively.
Thus, the low index of maize productivity has experienced a decline of 0.10 percent during 199091 to 2002-03, but increase of 0.52 percent during 2002-03 to 2014-15 and as a result overall
positive change of 0.42 percent during study period.
Hence, these changes in overall maize productivity index value indicate that gap between
the high and low magnitude of maize productivity has reduced over study period in the state,
which means gap in regional disparities in levels of maize productivity have minimized and it is asign of healthy maize cultivation.
Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 62

Table 02: Changes in Levels of Maize Crop Productivity: 1990-91 to 2014-15#

Tehsils

Change1990-91
to 2002-03

Change2002-03 to
2014-15

Change1990-91 to
2014-15#

Tehsils

Change1990-91 to
2002-03

Change2002-03 to
2014-15

Change1990-91 to
2014-15

1

Bilaspur Sadar-5.68-36.17-41.8544

Spite-10.94

10.51

0.42

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Jandutta
Naina Devi ji
Ghumarwin
Pangi
ChurahChambaSalooniDalhousie
Bhattiyat
Bharmaur
Hamirpur
Bhoranj
BarsarNadaunSujanpurBaijnath
PalampurJaisinghpur
Dharmshala

10.24-12.66
8.61
-3.66
-7.76
-1.55
-6.29
-8.8
6.8
-10.68
9.76
-9.9
3.33
2.93
-29.42-15.59
-7.98
-0.47
-9.16

7.59
-15.09
4.14
-9.47
-1.63
-2.77
-6.83
-19.64-7.56-43.04
10.88
21.97
-8.95
-11.24
-2.32
-5.03
-3.32
-0.25
-3.76

-17.83-27.7512.75-13.13-9.39-4.32-13.12-28.44-0.76-53.72
20.64
12.07
-5.62
-8.31
-31.74-20.62-11.3-0.72-12.92

45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63

Mandi
Sundernagar
Sarkaghat
Jogindernagar
KarsogChchyot
ThunagBaldwara
Bali Chowki
Sandhol
PaddharNihri
Lad-Bharol
RampurKumarsain
Suni
Shimla (R)Shimla (U)
Theog

8.64
3.24
4.94
8.31
16.47
12.09
9.61
5.29
15.57
-8.7
5.88
19.78
-7.54
5.61
1.94
-5.73
7.46
7.37
-8.73

-24.15-14.34-14.39
-13.4
-4.83
-3.43
-10.94-18.73-0.45-4.93-13.46-11.63
2.69-13.61-25.41-35.27-22.37-23.94-21.32-15.51
-11.1
-9.45
-5.09
11.64
8.66
1.33
-13.44
15.12-13.63
-7.58
8.15
-4.85
-8
-25.41-35.27-22.37-23.94-21.32

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29

Shahpur
NurpurIndoraJawali
Fatehpur
Dehra
Jaswan Kotla
RakkarJawalamukhi

0.76
10.03
11.12
-0.27
-1.5
-6.46
-9.56
0.17
-5.99

-4.86
-0.59
-7.49
-0.5
-0.94
-2.22
-10.57
3.22
1.85

-4.1
9.44
3.63
-0.77
-2.44
-6.68
-20.13
3.39
-4.14

64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72

Kotkhai
JubbalRohru
Chirgaon
Dodrakwar
Chopal
Nahan
Paonta Sahib
Pachhad-11.22
5.58
2.21
-9.09
5.42
0.79
-16.46-26.44-23.26-11.51-20.94-20.38-11.42
-6.16
-7.38
5.19
-4.74
-6.53

-11.51-15.36
18.17
-2.33
-0.74
5.19
-11.27-31.18-29.7930

Khundiyan

-1.55

1.36

-0.19

73

Rajgarh-25.59-3.35-28.9431
32

KangraNagrota
BagwanBaroh
Kapla
Moorang
PoohNichar
SanglaKullu
ManaliBanjarNirmand-3.28-13.26

-5.81
-7.97

-9.09
-21.2374
75

Shillai
Renuka ji-18.42-20.83

5.12
5.83

-13.3
-15

-6.08
-1.53
0.13
1.58
1.1
-9.87
7.46
8.44
14.65
9.55

-27.4
-6.8
-3.11
-1.95
-2.63
-2.2
31.09
6.07
10.43
2.72

-33.48
-8.33
-2.98
-0.37
-1.53
-12.07-38.55
14.51
25.08
12.27

76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

Solan
Nalagarh
Kasauli
Baddi
Arki
Kandaghat
Una
Amb
Bangana
Haroli-30.17-15.44-12.53-20.12-27.76-19.43-18.96
1.21-2.34-11.27

2.3
-5.36
-1.98
6.07
10.23
-14.69
10
-0.82
-0.29
1.14

-27.87-20.8-14.51-14.05-17.53-34.12
-8.96
0.39
-2.63
-10.13

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42

Source: Tehsil Wise Lal Kitabs of Himachal Pradesh: 1989-92, 2001-04 and 2013-16.

Conclusion
In 1990-91, the index value of maize productivity varied from 47.55 percent in Spiti tehsil to 155.90
percent in Churah tehsil in study area. While in 2002-03, index value of crop productivity was alsovariable which ranged from 47.45 percent in Lahaul tehsil to 143.14 percent in Churah tehsil.
Whereas, magnitude of maize productivity in Himachal Pradesh during 2014-15 lies between
lowest of 47.97 percent in Spiti tehsil and highest of 141.51 percent in Churah tehsil. During study
period in Himachal Pradesh, the highest index value of maize productivity has declined from150.90 percent in 1990-91 to 143.14 percent in 2002-03 and further decreased to 141.15 percent
in 2014-15, thus recorded a fall of 6.76 index value during 1990-91 to 2002-03, 1.63 index value
during 2002-03 to 2014-15, but overall study period has experienced a negative change of 8.39
index value. Whereas the lowest index value of overall maize crop productivity was 47.55 percent,47.45 percent, and 47.97 percent during 1990-91, 2002-03 and 2014-15 respectively and noted
positive change of 0.42 percent. All this show that regional disparities in maize productivity have

Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 63

minimised during present period of investigation. Spatially, patterns of maize productivity
magnitude decrease from south-west to north-east direction and coincide with the patterns ofrelief, temperature, irrigation, road density, etc.
References
1. Ali, M.J. and Ali, M. (2007). “Levels of Agricultural Development in Malda District, West
Bengal” Geographical Review of India, Vol.69, No.2, pp. 178-186.
2. Chatterji and Maitreya (1964). “Some Aspects of Regional Variations in Agricultural
Productivity and Development in West Bengal”, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,
Vol.19, No.1, pp.207-212.
3. Hussain, M. (2009). ‘‘Systematic Agriculture Geography’’ Rawat Publication, Jaipur, pp.2162, 90, 93-117, 122-131, 200, 217, 222, 245.
4. Munir, A. (1988). “Agricultural Productivity and Regional Development-A Case Study of the
Sub-Himalayan East Region of Uttar Pradesh”, The Geographer, Vol.35, No.2, pp.45-59.
5. Prasad, A. R. and Tripathi, A. (2008). “Agricultural Productivity Growth in India”, Journal of
Global Economy an International journal.
6. Saddiqui, S. H. & Taufique, M. (2005). ‘‘Spatial Patterns of Agricultural Productivity in NorthBihar Plain Using Yangs Method’’, National Geographer, Vol, XL, No. 1 & 2, p-67.
7. Singh, J. (1976), ‘‘An Agricultural Geography of Haryana’’ Vishal Publications, University
Campus Kurukshetra, p. 299.
8. Singh, R.B. (1998). ‘‘ Impact of Agriculture and Land use / Cover Change of Soil and Water
Resources and Ecosystem Sustainability- A Case Study of Punjab’’, The Geographer, Vo. 45,
No.2, pp. 93-118.
9. Sohal, K.S.(2004). “Regional Disparities in Crop Productivity in Punjab, India”, National
Geographer, Vol.25, No.2, pp.107-114.
10. Tehsil Wise Lal Kitabs of Himachal Pradesh:1989-92,2001-04 and 2013-16.

Journal of Global Resources, January 2022, Volume 08 (01) Shivjeet Kaur, Jaswinder Kaur and K. S. Sohal Page | 64