Tribal communities, the original inhabitants of India, comprise over 104 million people (8.4% of the population) and are integral to the nation’s cultural fabric (Dash et al., 2019). Despite constitutional safeguards, they continue to face socio-economic marginalization and limited political participation (Saxena and Ganveer, 2013). Odisha, with 62 tribes forming 24% of its population, ranks second in tribal concentration after Madhya Pradesh (Dash et al., 2019), necessitating targeted, inclusive development (Sharma et al., 2019). Studies have shown that tribal farming households in Odisha face challenges in livelihood diversification, income stability and adoption of sustainable agricultural practices, further justifying the need for focused development interventions (Jayasingh et al., 2024; Meena et al., 2024). The Tribal Sub-plan (TSP), now the Scheduled Tribe Component, was introduced to bridge these gaps through focused resource allocation and integrated policies (Mutatkar, 2022; Devi and Dhal, 2020). However, implementation in Odisha faces persistent challenges such as poor last-mile delivery, administrative inefficiencies and weak community participation (Swamy, 2010; Devara and Deshmukh, 2017). Previous studies from Agricultural Science Digest also highlight that adoption of improved agricultural practices among tribal farmers remains low due to infrastructural, economic and social constraints, reflecting similar barriers faced under the TSP (Badhala and Kanojia, 2017; Jena and Mishra, 2022). Historical neglect, socio-cultural barriers, remoteness and inadequate infrastructure-especially affecting tribal women-further impede progress (Saravanan, 2018; Panda, 2005, 2021; Malyadri, 2020). This study critically explores these constraints through literature review, stakeholder engagement and field observations, offering evidence-based recommendations for more inclusive and sustainable tribal development in Odisha (Mohanta et al., 2020; Velusamy, 2021).

Study area
 
Odisha, situated on India’s eastern coast between 17°49'N-22°34'N latitude and 81°24'E–87°29'E longitude, holds strategic importance due to its climate, natural resources and socio-economic dynamics (Nanda et al., 2020). Its 560 km Bay of Bengal coastline shapes both its economy and culture (Mohanty et al., 2020). The state hosts the Mahanadi Delta, formed by the Mahanadi, Brahmani and Baitarini rivers, supporting diverse ecological and human systems (Hazra et al., 2019). Odisha ranks second after Madhya Pradesh in tribal population, with Scheduled Tribes concentrated in its forested and hilly interiors (Dash et al., 2019). These groups reflect vast cultural, linguistic and socio-economic diversity (Mohanty, 2018), yet many, like the Pengo tribe, remain socio-economically and educationally disadvantaged (Naik, 2017). Compared to other tribal-dominated states, Odisha shows both similarities and distinct patterns in tribal development.
 
Sample selection
 
Study of targeted phenomena in tribal populations involves a systematic approach, i.e., an ex post facto design (Tripura, 2023). Kendujhar and Rayagada were chosen due to their high tribal concentration (Satpati and Sharma, 2020; Rowkith and Bhagwan, 2020). Stratified random sampling of blocks and panchayats facilitated subgroup diversification and enhanced generalizability (Kumar et al., 2018; Rani et al., 2020; Thamminaina et al., 2020). This type of sampling captures population variability more effectively than simple random sampling (Ramya, 2020). Ex post facto study examines available data to investigate variable interactions (Shrivastava and Shrivastava, 2018). In tribal societies, where historical and socio-cultural variables hold significance, it yields information on complex interactions (Meghani et al., 2024). Application of appropriate statistical tools provides research validity and reliability (Kondo et al., 2014).
 
Data collection and analysis
 
Effective data collection using primary and secondary sources is essential to understand issues in Tribal Sub-Plans (TSP) (Dash et al., 2019; Satpati and Sharma, 2020). Primary data from interviews and FGDs with tribal farmer beneficiaries provided insights into agricultural constraints and community-based solutions (Ramya, 2020; Beza et al., 2016; Raveesha et al., 2019). Constraints were ranked by perceived severity (Imtiaz and Rana, 2014) and converted to per cent positions using the formula: Per cent Position = 100(Rij - 0.5)/Nj (Singh et al., 2017; Mircioiu and Atkinson, 2017). Garrett’s Ranking Table was then used to analyze ordinal data as interval data (Garrett and Woodworth, 1969; Nyaligwa et al., 2016; Schwalm et al., 2017). Average Garrett scores reflected the collective perception of severity, guiding prioritization and minimizing bias (Bansal et al., 2022). High scores indicated urgent issues, while low scores suggested lower priority. Constraint programming models and decision-support tools can aid in addressing these prioritized challenges (Panda et al., 2021).

Planning constraints in tribal sub-plan execution
 
As per data in Table 1 the highest-ranked planning constraint is “Situational analysis not done properly” (Mean Garrett Score: 71.84), indicating a critical gap in the foundational understanding of field realities. This is closely followed by “Emphasis not given to indigenous knowledge” (64.56), showing a lack of appreciation for local wisdom. Additionally, “Participatory planning not emphasized” and “Lack of involvement of farmers in problem diagnosis” highlight a top-down approach that neglects stakeholder engagement. The lowest-ranked constraint, “Experience of the beneficiary not incorporated” (33.84), still points to the systemic undervaluation of local experience. Overall, the data reveals inadequate inclusivity and poor groundwork in the planning phase.


 
Program development constraints
 
As shown in Table 2 shows the top constraint is “Insufficient attempt for self-employment” (Mean Garrett Score: 68.13, Rank I), with substantial economic independence deficit. Second is “Inadequate scope for involvement of farm women” (64.00, Rank II), with limited gender inclusion, followed by “Priority not given towards poverty alleviation aspects” (61.29, Rank III), with poor socio-economic need alignment. Lower ranked but notable are “No sustainable programming” (32.27, Rank VI) and “Programming not with essential need of the beneficiaries” (31.81, Rank VII). These results highlight the imperative of realignment towards self-employment, gender balance and poverty alleviation programs.


 
Technological constraint
 
 As per Table 3 the most prominent technological constraint is the “Insufficient scope for immediate solving of field problems” (Mean Garrett Score: 67.86 Rank I), indicating that existing technologies often fail to address practical, on-site challenges. This is followed by “Inadequate discussion for clarification and understanding on suggested technologies” (65.02, Rank II), reflecting insufficient training and communication. “Affordability of technology” (65.27, Rank III) also poses a major barrier to adoption. These findings emphasize the need for field-relevant, affordable technologies supported by effective user education.



Economical constraint
 
As per Table 4 Economic barriers significantly hinder program implementation. “Sanctioned funds not timely released” (74.05) tops the list, showing how administrative delays affect field outcomes. The absence of “Revolving funds for SHG activities” (59.27) and “Inadequate funds to cover all farm-based activities” (56.03) also rank high, revealing structural financial inadequacies. Interestingly, “High cost of suggested programmes” (33.50) was less of a concern, indicating that cost alone isn’t as limiting as availability and timing of funds.


 
Socio-psychological constraint
 
As per Table 5, socio-cultural resistance remains a strong barrier, as “Strong value system restricts adoption” (78.17) and “Assumption on failure of suggested technology” (67.29) dominate the rankings. “No encouragement from family members” (61.008) reflects interpersonal barriers. In contrast, “Inadequate attempt to organize beneficiaries” (28.15) and “Poor extension approaches” (30.375) highlight institutional gaps in community mobilization and awareness efforts. Addressing these deeply rooted psychological factors is crucial for behavioral change and adoption.


 
Extension services constraints
 
Effective extension services are crucial for translating innovation into practice. The top constraint, as shown in Table 6, is “Not properly diagnosing field situations” (Mean Garrett Score: 77.99), reflecting planning-related shortcomings. This is followed by “Inadequate extension activities for motivation” (64.17) and “Planned programmes not timely implemented” (62.06), highlighting gaps between planning and execution. In contrast, “Insufficient incentives to implement planned programmes” (21.10) ranked lowest, indicating it is a lesser concern compared to systemic and operational issues.


 
Monitoring and evaluation constraint
 
As per Table 7, robust monitoring and evaluation (MandE) systems are vital for accountability and adaptive management. Key constraints include insufficient conflict resolution efforts (Mean Garrett Score: 75.88 Rank I), which hinder stakeholder cooperation and project progress. The lack of prompt action on field issues (67.96, Rank II) allows problems to persist, while delays in input availability (63.15, Rank III) reflect poor logistical oversight. These deficiencies weaken the responsiveness and effectiveness of TSP implementation.


 
Infrastructural constraint
 
Adequate infrastructure is essential for sustainable development, yet critical gaps persist. The most severe constraint, as shown in Table 8, is the lack of funds for repair and maintenance of created assets (Mean Garrett Score: 71.95, Rank I), leading to infrastructure deterioration and reduced long-term returns. The absence of sincere efforts to develop irrigation facilities (67.58, Rank II) and conserve rainwater (58.88, Rank III) further highlights deficiencies in water management infrastructure, undermining agricultural productivity and sustainability.

The study highlights that effective Tribal Sub-plan (TSP) implementation demands an integrated, bottom-up approach that addresses planning, technological, financial, socio-cultural and institutional constraints. Key strategies include participatory planning, timely resource allocation, capacity building and governance reforms. Strengthening local institutions and honoring indigenous knowledge are vital to ensure inclusive, resilient and sustainable development in tribal regions. These findings offer actionable insights for policymakers to enhance the impact of TSP in Odisha.

The present study was conducted under the guidance and supervision of my supervisor Dr.Santosh Kumar Rout during the course of this study. No external funding was received for this study.
 
Disclaimer
 
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions or policies of their affiliated institutions, the publisher, the editors, or the reviewers. Any products discussed or claims made by their manufacturers within this article are not endorsed or guaranteed by the publisher.
 
Informed consent
 
All participants involved in the interviews and surveys provided informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study. Ethical standards were maintained throughout the research process.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.