Households’ attitude about ecosystem conservation after implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in Lakhari Valley Wildlife Sanctuary, India

  • Brajaraja MishraEmail author
Research Paper


This paper explains households’ attitude towards ecosystem conservation after the implementation of Forest Rights Act (FRA) in the Lakhari Valley Wildlife Sanctuary. It also analyses the factors motivating them for ecosystem conservation. It is found that those households which benefited under the FRA had comparatively better perception about the conservation status of the sanctuary and were willing to cooperate with the authorities implementing the conservation programmes. A higher income from forest-based livelihood activities mainly motivated the households to follow better conservation practices. The households’ participation level in the conservation programmes can be further stepped up if their rights to forest resources are better recognised by the authorities implementing forest resources.


Forest Rights Act Attitude Conservation Forest resources Livelihoods 



I am thankful to K. Hanumantha Rao and P. Purushotham in preparation of this paper.


  1. Aggarwal A (2011) Implementation of forest rights act, changing forest landscape, and “Politics of REDD+” in India. Resour Energy Dev 8(2):131–148Google Scholar
  2. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211Google Scholar
  3. Ajzen I, Fishbein A (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  4. Albarracín D, Johnson BT, Fishbein M, Muellerleile PA (2001) Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 127:142–161Google Scholar
  5. Allendorf T, Swe KK, Oo T, Htut Y, Aung M, Allendorf K et al (2006) Community attitudes toward three protected areas in upper Myanmar (Burma). Environ Conserv 33(4):344–352Google Scholar
  6. Anthony B (2007) The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environ Conserv 34(3):236–245Google Scholar
  7. Bamanyaki P, Holvoet N (2016) Integrating theory-based evaluation and process tracing in the evaluation of civil society gender budget initiatives. Evaluation 22(1):72–90Google Scholar
  8. Banerjee A, Ghosh S, Springate-Baginski O (2010) Obstructed access to forest justice in West Bengal: State violations in the mis-implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006. Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth (IPPG), University of Manchester, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  9. Barsky R, Bound J, Charles K, Lupton J (2002) Accounting for the black–white wealth gap: a nonparametric approach. J Am Stat Assoc 97(459):663–673Google Scholar
  10. Borrini-Feyerabend G, Kothari A, Oviedo G (2004) Indigenous and local communities and protected areas towards equity and enhanced conservation. World commission in Protected Areas, GlandGoogle Scholar
  11. Braverman MT (2012) Negotiating measurement: methodological and interpersonal considerations in the choice and interpretation of instruments. Am J Eval 34(1):99–114Google Scholar
  12. Campese J (2009) Rights-based approaches to conservation: an overview of concepts and questions. In: Campese J, Sunderland T, Greiber T, Oviedo G (eds) Rights-based approaches: exploring issues and opportunities for conservation. CIFOR and IUCN, Bogor, pp 1–41Google Scholar
  13. Centre for Development Support (2011) Recognition of community rights under forest rights act in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh: challenges and way forward. UNDP, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  14. Chauhan C (2011) Land Mafia paying tribals for forest encroachment. Retrieved from Hindustan Times.
  15. Colchester M (2006) Justice in the forest: rural livelihoods and forest. CIFORGoogle Scholar
  16. Conlin S, Stirrat RL (2008) Current challenges in development evaluation. Evaluation 14(2):193–208Google Scholar
  17. Das T, Kothari A (2013) Forest rights and conservation in India. In Jonas H, Jonas H, Subramanian SM (eds) The right to responsibility: resisting and engaging development, conservation, and the law in Asia (pp. 151–174). Natural Justice and United Nations University—Institute of Advanced Studies, MalaysiaGoogle Scholar
  18. Dasgupta P, Mäler K-G (1995) Poverty, institutions, and the environmental resource base. In Behrman J, Srinivasan TN (eds) Handbook of development economics, vol IIIA (p. Amsterdam). North Holland, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  19. Deininger K, Ali DA, Yamano T (2008) Legal knowledge and economic development: the case of land rights in Uganda. Land Econ 84(4):593–619Google Scholar
  20. DeWall CN, Visser P, Levitan L (2006) Openness to attitude change as a function of temporal perspective. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(8):1010–1023Google Scholar
  21. Dimitrov RS (2005) Hostage to norms: states, institutions and global forest politics. Glob Environ Polit 5:1–24Google Scholar
  22. Duraiappah A (1996) Poverty and environmental protection: a literature review and analysis. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Enviro Legal Defence Firm (2012) Synergy in various institutions in implementation of the scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 to Ensure Improved Livelihood Support as also Sustainable Forest Management. Dehradun: Indian Council of Forest Research and Education, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of IndiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Epstein S (1983) Aggregation and beyond: some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. J Pers 51:360–392Google Scholar
  25. Ezemenari K, Rudqvist A, Subbarao K (1999) Impact evaluation: a note on concepts and methods. Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Fortin N, Lemieux T, Firpo S (2010) Decomposition methods in economics. National Bureau of Economic Research, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. DFO, Gajapati (2007) Management plan for Lakhari Valley Wildlife Sanctuary of Paralakhemundi forest division for the period 2006–2007 to 2015–2016. Government of Odisha, BhubaneswarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ganga R, Julian A, James B (2011) Forest tenure in Asia: status and trends. RECOFTC, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  29. Ghate R (2009) Decentralizing forest management: pretense or reality? In the context of Forest Rights Act in India.
  30. Government of India (2006) The scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) act, 2006. Ministry of Law and Justice, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  31. Government of India (2010) National Committee on Forest Rights Act. Joint Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  32. Greene J (2005) The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. Int J Res Methods Edu 28(2):207–211Google Scholar
  33. Griffin J (2000) Welfare rights. J Ethics 4(1–2):27–43Google Scholar
  34. Hombrados J, Devisscher M, Martinez M (2015) The impact of land titling on agricultural investments in Tanzania: a theory-based approach. J Dev Eff 7(4):530–544Google Scholar
  35. Huber M, Lechner M, Wunsch C (2013) The performance of estimators based on the propensity score. J Econ 175:1–21Google Scholar
  36. Humphreys D (2011) International forest politics. In: Kütting G (ed) Global environmental politics: concepts, theories and case studies. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  37. Infield M, Namara A (2001) Community attitudes and behaviours towards conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35(1):48–60Google Scholar
  38. Jann B (2008) The Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. STATA J 8(4):453–479Google Scholar
  39. Jena M (2010) law on forest rights fails to deliver.
  40. John FA, Edwards-Jones G, Jones JP (2010) Conservation and human behaviour: lessons from social psychology. Wildl Res 37:658–667Google Scholar
  41. Jones KW, Holland MB, Naughton-Treves L, Morales M, Suarez L, Keenan K (2016) Forest conservation incentives and deforestation in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Environ Conserv 44:1–10Google Scholar
  42. Kaiser FG, Gundula H, Bogner FX (2005) Contrasting the theory of planned behavior with the value-belief-norm model in explaining conservation behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol 35:2150–2170Google Scholar
  43. Kashwan P (2013) The politics of rights-based approaches in conservation. Land Use Policy 31:613–626Google Scholar
  44. Khwaja A, Picone G, Salm M, Trogdon J (2011) A comparison of treatment effects estimators using a structural model of AMI treatment choices and severity of illness information from hospital charts. J Appl Econ 26:825–853Google Scholar
  45. Krishnadas M, Nair T, Karnad D (2013) Equality in conservation: comment on Bawa et al. 2011. Conserv Biol 27(2):422–424Google Scholar
  46. Lambini CK, Nguyen TT (2013) A comparative analysis of the effects of institutional property rights on forest livelihoods and forest conditions: evidence from Ghana and Vietnam. For Policy Econ 38:178–190Google Scholar
  47. Leach M, Mearns R (1991) Poverty and environment in developing countries: an overview study. Sussex University, Institute of Development Studies, SussexGoogle Scholar
  48. Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22:140Google Scholar
  49. Liscow ZD (2013) Do property rights promote investment but cause deforestation? Quasi-experimental evidence from Nicaragua. J Environ Econ Manage 65:241–261Google Scholar
  50. López-Medellin X, Navarro-Sigüenza AG, Bocco G (2011) Human population, economic activities, and wild bird conservation in Mexico: factors influencing their relationships at two different geopolitical scales. Rev Mex Biodivers 82:1267–1278Google Scholar
  51. Mahanta R, Das D (2013) Attitudes towards biodiversity conservation of forests dwellers and encroachers: a case study of Assam in Northeast India. Small-scale For 12:307–319Google Scholar
  52. Minhas B, Vaidyanathan A (1965) Growth of crop output in India 1951-54 to 1958-61: an analysis by component elements. J Indian Soc Agric Stat 17(2):230–252Google Scholar
  53. Mishra B (2016) Welfare and conservation implication of the forest rights act in the protected areas of Odisha, India. Indian Econ J 64(2):186–202Google Scholar
  54. Mishra B (2018) Implementation of the Forest Rights Act (2006) in Lakhari Valley Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha. J Land Rural Stud 6(2):1–13Google Scholar
  55. Mutanga CN, Vengesayi S, Muboko N, Gandiwa E (2015) Towards harmonious conservation relationships: a framework for understanding protected area staff-local community relationships in developing countries. J Nat Conserv 25:8–16Google Scholar
  56. Narain D (1977) Growth of productivity in Indian agriculture. Indian J Agric Econ 32(2):20–32Google Scholar
  57. Ñopo H (2003) Matching as a tool to decompose wage gaps. Middlebury College, MiddleburyGoogle Scholar
  58. Norgbey EB (2016) Debate on the appropriate methods for conducting impact evaluation of programs within the development context. J MultiDiscip Eval 12(27):58–66Google Scholar
  59. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the common. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  60. Popradit A, Ishida A, Murayama T, Srisatit T, Utarasakul T, Kiratiprayoon S et al (2015) Assessment of human’s attitude towards natural resource conservation in protected area in Thailand. Suan Sunandha Sci Tech J 2(2):18–23Google Scholar
  61. Quisumbing AR, Kumar N (2014) Land rights knowledge and conservation in rural Ethiopia: mind the gender gap. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  62. Radhakrishna R, Ravi C, Reddy BS (2013) Assessment of well-being in multidimensional perspective in post-reform India. Indian Econ Rev 48(1):129–166Google Scholar
  63. Ruiz-Mallén I, Schunko C, Corbera E, Rös M, Reyes-García V (2015) Meanings, drivers, and motivations for community-based conservation in latin America. Ecol Soc 20(3):33Google Scholar
  64. Sagar V (1980) Decomposition of growth trends and certain related issues. Indian J Agric Econ 35(2):42–59Google Scholar
  65. Sah JP, Heinen J (2001) Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake Area, Nepal. Environ Conserv 28(4):345–356Google Scholar
  66. Satapathy P, Jain G (2010) Tiger protection, Maoism and the Forest Rights Act: the story of Jenabil.
  67. Sathyapalan J (2010) Implementation of the forest rights act in the western ghats region of Kerala. Econ Polit Weekly 45(30):65–72Google Scholar
  68. Sharma CK, Sarma I (2014) Issues of conservation and livelihood in a forest village of Assam. Int J Rural Manag 10(1):47–68Google Scholar
  69. Shively GE (1997) Consumption risk, farm characteristics, and soil conservation adoption among low-income farmers in the Philippines. Agric Econ 17:165–177Google Scholar
  70. Słoczyński T (2013) The Oaxaca–blinder unexplained component as a treatment effects estimator. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
  71. Słoczyński T (2018) Average gaps and Oaxaca–Blinder decompositions: a cautionary tale about regression estimates of racial differences in labor market outcomes. IZA Institute of Labour Economics, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  72. Springate-Baginski O, Sarin M, Ghosh S, Dasgupta P, Bose I, Banerjee A, et al (2009) Redressing ‘Historical Injustice’ through the Indian Forest Rights Act 2006: a historical institutional analysis of contemporary forest rights reform, improving institutions for pro-poor growth. Department for International Development, Discussion paper series, 27Google Scholar
  73. Sunderlin W, Hatcher J, Liddle M (2008) From exclusion to ownership? Rights and resources. Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  74. Teel TL, Manfredo M (2010) Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv Biol 24(1):128–139Google Scholar
  75. Vaessen J (2010) Challenges in impact evaluation of development interventions: opportunities and limitations for randomized experiments. Institute of Development Policy and Management. Discussion Paper/2010Google Scholar
  76. Wandersee SM, Ana L, LópezCarr D, Yang Y (2012) Perception and decisions in modeling coupled human and natural systems: a case study from Fanjingshan National Nature Reserve, China. Ecol Model 229:37–49Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute for Social and Economic Change 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Economic and Social StudiesBegumpetIndia

Personalised recommendations