Advertisement

Journal of Quantitative Economics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 167–196 | Cite as

Drivers of Forest Ecosystem Change in Purnapani Area: Empirical Evidence and Policy Suggestions

  • Narendra N. DaleiEmail author
  • Yamini Gupt
Original Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Purnapani area of Sundargarh district of Indian state of Odisha was primarily dominated by tribal people with natural forest ecosystems. The local tribal people were mostly depending upon forest and agriculture for their livelihood. During 1958 Purnapani Limestone and Dolomite Quarry (PL&DQ) started mining of lime stone and dolomite in the area. The total land contributed by Purnapani villagers for mining, township and railway line construction was 569.64 acres. In 2003, the mines were closed and about 2000 mine workers lost their livelihood. During the last 50–60 years, unsustainable mining activities and then their abandonment have degraded the forest ecosystem and livelihood resource base of local communities in the Purnapani area. Thus in order to identify the major drivers of degraded forest ecosystems we have conducted primary surveys in Purnapani area. Using regression analyses we find that both mining activities and passenger transport services are the drivers of population growth in Purnapani area. Livelihood of local tribal people is being positively impacted by mining activity and passenger transport services operating from Purnapani area. Fuel wood consumption increases over time due to population growth which put great pressure on forest ecosystems to change. Both mineral production and population size have impacted human well-being negatively by positively impacting health expenditure. The amount of decline of community welfare in terms of net present value derived by the communities from extraction of forest resources is due to mine spoiled degraded forest ecosystem services. From our analysis we recommend that large-scale ecological restoration is necessary to protect the environment and to restore the resilience of ecosystem services in this area.

Keywords

Ecosystem Livelihood Mining Forest 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Department of Biotechnology (DBT), Government of India for financial support to carry out this study through the project entitled, “Environmental Biotechnology Restoration Ecology” sanctioned to the Centre for Environmental Management of Degraded Ecosystem (CEMDE), University of Delhi. The authors are grateful for the support provided by CEMDE for research and analysis and the logistic support provided by Purnapani Limestone and Dolomite Quarry (PL&DQ), Steel Authority of India (SAIL) to carry out the primary surveys. The authors acknowledge that they are responsible for the views expressed in this study, and DBT, SAIL, and CEMDE are no way responsible for any kind of inference drawn out of this study. The authors appreciate the valuable comments of the anonymous referees.

References

  1. Adonteng-Kissi, O. 2017. Poverty and mine’s compensation package: experiences of local farmers in Prestea mining community. Resources Policy 52: 226–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldrich, J.H., and F.E. Nelson. 1984. Linear Probability, Logit and Probit models, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Beverly Hills, California.Google Scholar
  3. Amacher, G.S., W.F. Hyde, and K.R. Kanel. 1996. Household fuelwood demand and supply in Nepal’s Tarai and Mid-Hills: choice between cash outlays and labor opportunity. World Development 24 (11): 1725–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arrow, K., B. Bolin, R. Costanza, P. Dasgupta, C. Folke, C.S. Holling, B.-O. Jansson, S. Levin, K.-G. Maeler, C. Perrings, and D. Pimentel. 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity and the environment. Science 268: 520–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auriat, N. 1992. Autobiographical memory and survey methodology: furthering the bridge between the two disciplines. In Theoretical Perspectives on Autobiographical Memory, ed. M.A. Conway, D.C. Rubin, H. Spinnler, and W.A. Wagenaar, 295–312. Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avcı, D., and C. Fernández-Salvador. 2016. Territorial dynamics and local resistance: two mining conflicts in Ecuador compared. The Extractive Industries and Society 3 (4): 912–921.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.10.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bardhan, P., Baland, J., Das, S., Mookherjee, D., Sarkar, R., 2001. Household firewood collection in rural Nepal: the role of poverty, collective action and modernization, Working Paper, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Baumgarten, M., J. Siemiatycki, and G.W. Gibbs. 1983. Validity of work histories obtained by interview for epidemiologic purposes. American Journal of Epidemiology 118: 583–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blane, B. 1997. Collecting Retrospective Data: Accuracy of Recall After 50 Years Judged Against Historical Records, Soc. Sci. Med. vol. 45, No. 10, 1519–1525. Great Britain: Elsevier Science ltd.Google Scholar
  10. Bluffstone, R.A. 1995. The effect of labor market performance on deforestation in developing countries under open access: an example from Nepal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bourbonnais, R., T. Meyer, and G. Theriault. 1988. Validity of self reported work history. British Journal of Industrial Medicine 45 (29): 32.Google Scholar
  12. Bury, Jeffrey. 2002. Livelihoods, mining and peasant protests in the Peruvian Andes. Journal of Latin American Geography 1 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Casey, V.A., J.T. Dwyer, C.S. Berkey, K.A. Coleman, J. Gardner, and L. Valadian. 1991. Long term memory of body weight and past weight satisfaction: a longitudinal follow-up study. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 53: 1493–1498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chopra, K., and Dasgupta. 2008. Nature of Household Dependence on Common Pool Resources: An Empirical Study, Economic and Political Weekly, February 23, 2008.Google Scholar
  15. Conde, M. 2017. Resistance to Mining. A review. Ecological Economics 132: 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Daily, G.C. 1997. In Nature’s services, ed. G.C. Daily. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dalei, N. and Gupt, Y. 2014. Livelihood sustainability of forest dependent communities in a mine-spoiled area. International Journal of Ecological Economics and Statistics 35: 30–47Google Scholar
  18. Dayal, V. 2006. A microeconometric analysis of household extraction of forest biomass goods in Ranthambhore National Park, India. Journal of Forest Economics 12: 145–163.Google Scholar
  19. Eichner, T., and J. Tschirhart. 2007. Efficient ecosystem services and naturalness in an ecological/economic model. Environmental and Resource Economics 37: 733–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farahani, H., and Bayazidi, S. 2017. Modeling the assessment of socio-economical and environmental impacts of sand mining on local communities: a case study of Villages Tatao River Bank in North-western part of Iran. Resources Policy.Google Scholar
  21. Hilbe, J.M. 2009. Logistic Regression Models, Chapman & Hall/Crc Texts in Statistical Science Series. USA: Chapman & Hall, CRC Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kelso, C., and Vogel, C. (2015). Diversity to decline-livelihood adaptations of the Namaqua Khoikhoi (1800–1900). Global Environmental Change 254–268.Google Scholar
  23. Krall, E.A., and Valadian, 1, Dwyer, J. T. and Gardner. J., 1989. Accuracy of recalled smoking data. American Journal of Public Health 79: 200–206.Google Scholar
  24. Lopez-feldman, A., and J.E. Wilen. 2008. Poverty and Spatial Dimensions of Non-timber Forest Extraction. UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  26. Mahapatra, K., and S. Kant. 2005. Tropical deforestation: a multinomial logistic model and some country-specific policy prescriptions. Forest Policy and Economics 7 (2005): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mishra, P.C., H.B. Sahu, and R.K. Patel. 2004. Environmental pollution status as a result of limestone and dolomite mining—a case study. Pollution Research 23(3)Google Scholar
  28. Mishra, P. (2009). Coal mining and rural livelihoods: case of the Ib Valley Coalfield, Orissa. Economic and Political Weekly XLIV(44): 117–123.Google Scholar
  29. Mishra, S., and P. Mishra. 2017. Do adverse ecological consequences cause resistance against land acquisition? The experience of mining regions in Odisha, India. The Extractive Industries and Society 4 (1): 140–150.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2016.11.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moomen, A.-W. 2017. Strategies for managing large-scale mining sector land use conflicts in the global south. Resources Policy 51: 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mundu, B. 2003. India Case Study, Indigenous Peoples, the Extractive Industries and the World Bank, The case of East Parej Coal Mines Open Cast Project in Jharkland, India.Google Scholar
  32. Must, A., W.C. Willett, and W.H. Diez. 1993. Remote recall of childhood height, weight and body build by elderly subjects. American Journal of Epidemiology 138 (56): 64.Google Scholar
  33. Norgaard, R.B. 1994. Development betrayed: the end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Perman, R., Y. MA, and J. McGilvray. 1996. Natural Resource and Environmental Economics, 1st ed. London: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Reimer, M., and B. Matthes. 2006. Collecting event histories with true tales: techniques to improve autobiographical recall problems in standardized interviews. Quality & Quantity 41: 711–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Robinson, E.J.Z., et al. 2008. Spatial and temporal modeling of community non-timber forest extraction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56: 234–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stewart, W.F., J.A. Tonascia, and G.M. Matanoski. 1987. The validity of questionnaire-reported work history in live respondents. Journal of Occupational Medicine 29: 795–800.Google Scholar
  38. Tschirhart, J. 2000. General equilibrium of an ecosystem. Journal of Theoretical Biology 203: 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Indian Econometric Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics, School of BusinessUniversity of Petroleum and Energy StudiesDehradunIndia
  2. 2.Department of Business EconomicsUniversity of Delhi South CampusNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations