Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Social and Economic Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Control group is defined as a comparative group of persons who did not receive the intervention, but they have the similar characteristics as the persons receiving intervention (treatment group).

  2. Counterfactual is the one that is arrived by the interaction of the analyst’s prior with the perception of participants.

  3. Suitability/limitation of each method to different data requirements can be found in Ezemenari et al. (1999).

  4. A Likert scale is a psychometric tool used in survey research to collect information in scales by assuming equidistance from one point to other. For more details see Likert (1932).

  5. The path independence property of decomposition implies that the different computed elements of the detailed decomposition do not affect the result of decomposition.

  6. n.s.: not statistically significant at 05 per cent level.

References

  • Aggarwal A (2011) Implementation of forest rights act, changing forest landscape, and “Politics of REDD+” in India. Resour Energy Dev 8(2):131–148

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50:179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen I, Fishbein A (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 127:142–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):344–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anthony B (2007) The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neighbouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South Africa. Environ Conserv 34(3):236–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamanyaki P, Holvoet N (2016) Integrating theory-based evaluation and process tracing in the evaluation of civil society gender budget initiatives. Evaluation 22(1):72–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Manchester

  • 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):663–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Gland

    Google Scholar 

  • Braverman MT (2012) Negotiating measurement: methodological and interpersonal considerations in the choice and interpretation of instruments. Am J Eval 34(1):99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Centre for Development Support (2011) Recognition of community rights under forest rights act in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh: challenges and way forward. UNDP, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Chauhan C (2011) Land Mafia paying tribals for forest encroachment. Retrieved from Hindustan Times. http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/679860.aspx

  • Colchester M (2006) Justice in the forest: rural livelihoods and forest. CIFOR

  • Conlin S, Stirrat RL (2008) Current challenges in development evaluation. Evaluation 14(2):193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Malaysia

  • 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, Washington

  • Deininger K, Ali DA, Yamano T (2008) Legal knowledge and economic development: the case of land rights in Uganda. Land Econ 84(4):593–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeWall CN, Visser P, Levitan L (2006) Openness to attitude change as a function of temporal perspective. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32(8):1010–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimitrov RS (2005) Hostage to norms: states, institutions and global forest politics. Glob Environ Polit 5:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duraiappah A (1996) Poverty and environmental protection: a literature review and analysis. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London

  • 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 India

  • Epstein S (1983) Aggregation and beyond: some basic issues on the prediction of behavior. J Pers 51:360–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, DC

  • Fortin N, Lemieux T, Firpo S (2010) Decomposition methods in economics. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Bhubaneswar

  • Ganga R, Julian A, James B (2011) Forest tenure in Asia: status and trends. RECOFTC, Bangkok

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghate R (2009) Decentralizing forest management: pretense or reality? In the context of Forest Rights Act in India. http://www.indiana.edu/~wow4/papers/ghate_wow4.pdf

  • Government of India (2006) The scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (recognition of forest rights) act, 2006. Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of India (2010) National Committee on Forest Rights Act. Joint Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forest and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, New Delhi

  • Greene J (2005) The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. Int J Res Methods Edu 28(2):207–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffin J (2000) Welfare rights. J Ethics 4(1–2):27–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):530–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber M, Lechner M, Wunsch C (2013) The performance of estimators based on the propensity score. J Econ 175:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys D (2011) International forest politics. In: Kütting G (ed) Global environmental politics: concepts, theories and case studies. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):48–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jann B (2008) The Blinder–Oaxaca decomposition for linear regression models. STATA J 8(4):453–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jena M (2010) law on forest rights fails to deliver. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50652

  • John FA, Edwards-Jones G, Jones JP (2010) Conservation and human behaviour: lessons from social psychology. Wildl Res 37:658–667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 44:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:2150–2170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashwan P (2013) The politics of rights-based approaches in conservation. Land Use Policy 31:613–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 26:825–853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krishnadas M, Nair T, Karnad D (2013) Equality in conservation: comment on Bawa et al. 2011. Conserv Biol 27(2):422–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 38:178–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leach M, Mearns R (1991) Poverty and environment in developing countries: an overview study. Sussex University, Institute of Development Studies, Sussex

    Google Scholar 

  • Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22:140

    Google Scholar 

  • Liscow ZD (2013) Do property rights promote investment but cause deforestation? Quasi-experimental evidence from Nicaragua. J Environ Econ Manage 65:241–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 82:1267–1278

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:307–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):230–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra B (2016) Welfare and conservation implication of the forest rights act in the protected areas of Odisha, India. Indian Econ J 64(2):186–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra B (2018) Implementation of the Forest Rights Act (2006) in Lakhari Valley Wildlife Sanctuary, Odisha. J Land Rural Stud 6(2):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:8–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narain D (1977) Growth of productivity in Indian agriculture. Indian J Agric Econ 32(2):20–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Ñopo H (2003) Matching as a tool to decompose wage gaps. Middlebury College, Middlebury

    Google Scholar 

  • Norgbey EB (2016) Debate on the appropriate methods for conducting impact evaluation of programs within the development context. J MultiDiscip Eval 12(27):58–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the common. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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):18–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Quisumbing AR, Kumar N (2014) Land rights knowledge and conservation in rural Ethiopia: mind the gender gap. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Radhakrishna R, Ravi C, Reddy BS (2013) Assessment of well-being in multidimensional perspective in post-reform India. Indian Econ Rev 48(1):129–166

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):33

  • Sagar V (1980) Decomposition of growth trends and certain related issues. Indian J Agric Econ 35(2):42–59

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):345–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satapathy P, Jain G (2010) Tiger protection, Maoism and the Forest Rights Act: the story of Jenabil. http://www.fra.org.in/Jenabil%20displacement.pdf

  • Sathyapalan J (2010) Implementation of the forest rights act in the western ghats region of Kerala. Econ Polit Weekly 45(30):65–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma CK, Sarma I (2014) Issues of conservation and livelihood in a forest village of Assam. Int J Rural Manag 10(1):47–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shively GE (1997) Consumption risk, farm characteristics, and soil conservation adoption among low-income farmers in the Philippines. Agric Econ 17:165–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Słoczyński T (2013) The Oaxaca–blinder unexplained component as a treatment effects estimator. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/50660/

  • 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, Germany

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 27

  • Sunderlin W, Hatcher J, Liddle M (2008) From exclusion to ownership? Rights and resources. Washington, DC

  • Teel TL, Manfredo M (2010) Understanding the diversity of public interests in wildlife conservation. Conserv Biol 24(1):128–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaessen J (2010) Challenges in impact evaluation of development interventions: opportunities and limitations for randomized experiments. Institute of Development Policy and Management. Discussion Paper/2010

  • 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 229:37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Economic and Social Studies, Nizamiah Observatory Campus, Begumpet, Hyderabad, 500016, India

    Brajaraja Mishra

Authors
  1. Brajaraja Mishra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brajaraja Mishra.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics of per capita monthly income (Rs.) of sample households and proportion of income derived from various sources
Full size table

Appendix 2: Detailed decomposition results

See Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6 Detailed decomposition of the 1.0215 gap in household’s attitude towards ecosystem conservation between the FRA-NC and FRA-PC categories
Full size table
Table 7 Detailed decomposition of the 1.3623 gap in household’s attitude towards ecosystem conservation between the FRA-NC and FRA-FC categories
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mishra, B. Households’ attitude about ecosystem conservation after implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in Lakhari Valley Wildlife Sanctuary, India. J. Soc. Econ. Dev. 21, 1–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-019-00077-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40847-019-00077-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation