Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. (4) pp.

409-426 409
NIRD, Hyderabad.

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND

LOCAL LIVELIHOODS: A STUDY ON
SIMILIPAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE IN INDIA

Madhusmita Dash and

Bhagirath Behera*

ABSTRACT

Over-exploitation of natural resources and changing climatic conditions due

to global warming are responsible for rapid loss of biological diversity. Creation of
protected areas (PAs) across the globe which forms a critical component in global
biodiversity conservation efforts are primarily designed for preventing further loss of
species by restricting human use of natural resources. The Similipal
Biosphere Reserve (SBR) in the Indian State of Odisha is the sixth largest biosphere
reserve in the country and forms a major part of the World Network of Biosphere
Reserves. However, currently the reserve is under increasing pressure from growing
human population that directly depends on the reserve for their livelihoods. The
objectives of the present study are to develop a comprehensive understanding of the
problems facing the SBR; and identify and analyse different factors that determine
the extent of dependency of villages located in and around the reserve for extraction
of non-timber forest products (NTFPs). The paper reviews the existing studies on the
SBR by using the DPSIR framework for an in-depth understanding of interaction
between local population and the biosphere reserve. Econometric techniques and
descriptive statistics are applied to analyse the secondary data collected from 136
villages located in and around the reserve. The results show that economically poor
villages and villages having more male members are likely to extract more NTFPs
from the reserve. Villages located in transitional and buffer zones are likely to extract
more NTFPs compared to villages that are in core zone. Designing appropriate and
effective local institutions that would foster biodiversity conservation as well as
livelihoods and structure the community behaviour are widely considered as the
panacea for this problem.

Introduction pointed out that the loss of biodiversity in terms

The basic human life-support systems of of extinction of species has increased
the biological environment have always been dramatically, largely due to increasing human
characterised by change - an inevitable intervention in the natural environment
consequence of all anthropogenic factors. In (Vitousek et al., 1997; Pimm, 2001; Agarwal and
recent years, many scientific reports have Gibson, 1999) resulting in various social conflicts
(Kothari, 1999) and ecological disruption.
* Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, Kharagpur – 721302,
West Bengal, India E-Mail: [email protected]; [email protected]
The authors would like to thank Profs. K.B.L Srivastava, Pulak Mishra, Ashok Mishra and M. Padmavati for their useful
suggestions on the earlier versions of this paper. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous referee of this
Journal for the constructive comments which have helped to improve the paper immensely. However, the usual
disclaimers apply.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

410 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

Forest dwelling communities and environment (Shaanker et al., 2004; Shahabuddin

indigenous tribes have for centuries depended and Kumar, 2007)2.
on forest resources for their livelihoods. There
However, the restrictions imposed both
has been increasing interest in the contribution
by the Central and local governments on PA
that natural forests make to local employment
forest resources lead to clashes and
and income generating activities (Arnold and
confrontation between local people and PA
Towns, 1998; Chileshe, 2005). The people
managers and many times result in acute
inhabited in and around the protected areas
human-wildlife conflicts. Hence, it has been
(PAs) live in a subsistence economy with little or
argued that the local or indigenous people and
no access to market, education, health and other
their social, physical, and economic well-being
sanitation services and try to improve their living
should be realised from the perspective of a
standards by extracting more forest resources
holistic conservation effort (Sanderson et al.,
(Godoy et al., 1998; Cavendish, 2000; Fisher,
2002; Sanderson, 2005; Redford and Fearn, 2007).
2004) that may result in serious implications on
It is widely accepted that local support is a critical
conservation of biodiversity and natural habitats.
factor in successful management of PAs (Wade,
Nevertheless, the PAs are subjected to pressure
1988; Ostrom, 1990; Bromley, 1992; Baland and
from these human extractions/dependencies in
Platteau, 1996; Bashir, 2000). Local support or at
terms of grazing, cutting trees for firewood and
least acceptance of conservation will be
timber, extraction of non-timber forest products
achieved if the attitude of the people can be
(NTFPs), hunting, etc (World Bank, 1995; Amacher
changed by promoting non-farm activities, such
et al., 1999; Heltberg et al., 2000; Linde-Rahr,
as tourism, alternative employment
2003).
opportunities, etc., i.e., making them a
However, empirical studies show that shareholder in net conservation benefits or at
human dependency is high for collection of least involving them in low or no costs (Katrina,
NTFPs (Heltberg et al., 2000; Heltberg, 2001; 2000; Sekhar, 2003; Sekhar, 2003; Nji, 2004;
Amacher et al., 1999; Linde-Rahr, 2003; Shah, Macura et al., 2011). However, promotion of such
2007). There is a growing consensus among policy requires deeper understanding of the
researchers that NTFPs contribute significantly interaction between the human population and
for rural livelihoods (Cavendish, 2000; Cocks et the biosphere reserve. In other words, it is
al., 2008). But, there exists a two-way relationship important to examine the basic social and
between extraction of NTFPs, particularly economic characteristics of the villages that are
fuelwood collection and deforestation. On one located in and around the biosphere reserve and
hand, the demand for fuelwood from village how these factors shape the use of resources
commons and forests is the prime cause of forest from the biosphere reserve.
degradation and on the other hand, increasing
On the basis of above discussions, the
fuelwood scarcity is the result of perpetuation
present paper makes an attempt to examine
of forest degradation as it is the main source of
these issues in the context of Similipal Biosphere
energy for local people (World Bank, 1995;
Reserve (henceforth SBR) in the Indian State of
Heltberg et al., 2000). This phenomenon
Odisha. The aim of the study is to develop a
operates in PAs and thereby PAs face
comprehensive understanding of the complex
tremendous pressure from human population.
relation between human population and the SBR
Studies find that excessive resource extraction
using the DPSIR framework; and identify and
for human livelihoods not only affect the tree
analyse different factors that determine the
species and their compositions but also have
extent of dependency of villages located in and
adverse impact on wildlife, invertebrates and the
around the SBR on the reserve for extraction of
Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013
Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 411

NTFPs, using secondary data collected by Indian 170 families of which 64 species are cultivated
Institute of Forest Management (IIFM) in 2007- plants and 96 are orchids (Mishra, 2010). Among
08. 41 species of medicinal plants of Odisha
Study Area Description prioritised for conservation action (ibid), 30 are
known to occur in Similipal. It is home to 42
The selection of SBR as the study region species of mammals, 242 species of birds and
is justified on the following grounds. The SBR 30 species of reptiles. As a major tiger habitat, it
covers an area of 5569 km2 and is located in the is estimated to have 99 Royal Bengal Tigers and
northern part of the Eastern Ghats of the Indian 432 wild elephants (Census, 2007).
State of Odisha (200 17’- 220 34’ N and 850 40’-
870 10 E’). It is the sixth largest biosphere reserve The SBR falls under one of the Schedule
in the country, recognised as one of the first nine V areas (tribal sub-plan area) of the State as
prime areas for tiger conservation programme. majority of inhabitants are tribals.There are 1265
The forests of Similipal were once leased out villages inside the SBR with a total population of
during 1890. In 1907, 1152 sq. mile of forests 4.62 lakhs of whom 73.44 per cent belong to
was notified as reserve forests abandoning scheduled tribes (Census, 2001). Out of 1265
leasing of timber logging awarded to private villages, 65 villages are situated inside the
companies (Senapati & Sahoo, 1967). The first Sanctuary area of which 61 villages are in the
systematic forest management was initiated buffer area and remaining three villages are in
through the working plan of JJ Hart in 1909. It core area.The total population of villages located
was officially designated as a ‘Tiger reserve’ in in buffer and core area is 12000 and 449,
1956 and included under national conservation respectively (ibid). In buffer area, the percentage
programme ‘Project Tiger’ in 1973. The of scheduled tribes is 87 while in core area it is
Government of Odisha declared Similipal as a 100 (ibid). However, the reserve is facing heavy
wildlife sanctuary in 1979 with a designated area dependence of local tribal population residing
of 2750 sq. kms. The sanctuary has a core area in and around the biosphere reserve for their
(845.70 sq. kms.) which has been accorded a daily livelihood, which is putting enormous
national park status by the State Government, pressure on the reserve.
without a final notification though, by the Indian
Human-nature Interaction in the SBR: A
Government due to non-eviction of all villages
Review of Literature Using the Driver-
from the core out of the designated park area.
Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)
The Similipal Tiger Reserve (STR) along with a
Framework
transitional area of 2250 sq. kms has been
declared as a ‘Biosphere Reserve’ in 1994. The present study uses the DPSIR 3
UNESCO added the biosphere reserve to its list framework in order to understand the relation
of biosphere reserves in May 2009. STR is one of between the conservation of biodiversity and
such rare PAs to be declared as a biosphere local livelihood implications in the SBR and
reserve, sanctuary and designated national park identify and analyse important factors of Driver-
having both ‘Project Tiger’ and Project Elephant’, Pressure-State-Impact-Response. For this the
two flagship conservation programmes. study takes the help of existing literature and
The reserve is dominated by sal (Sho-rea secondary data on socio-economic and
robusta) forests with semi-evergreen, moist and demographic factors from the region. The
dry deciduous vegetation. The area is the abode summary of the analysis of the DPSIR framework
of 1076 species of vascular plants representing are presented in Figure 1.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

412 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

Figure 1: Understanding the Biodiversity Conservation in

SBR using DPSIR Framework

DRIVERS
 Demographic
 Economic RESPONSES
 Social  Relocation of core area villages
 Natural  Access to health, education, sanitation
 Cultural  Provision of non-farm employment
 Patronage of eco-tourism
 Provision of collective action

PRESSURES
 Extraction of resources (grazing,
cutting trees for firewood and
timber, extraction of NTFPs)
 Poaching of wild animals
 Changes in land use pattern
 Irregular tourist inflow
 Climate change
IMPACTS
 Human-wildlife conflicts
 Loss of wildlife habitat and
extinction of species
 Forest degradation
 Loss of local livelihoods
 Human health
STATES  Declining tourism revenue
 Changes in soil condition
 Changes in wildlife habitat and
species
 Changes in forest condition

Driving Forces : One of the major driving 2001), which has increased by around two times
factors putting pressure on the SBR is the compared to the previous census (Census, 1991).
tremendous increase in population in and around Besides, the tribal population constitutes around
the SBR. The total population of the entire 74 per cent of the total population who depend
biosphere reserve is around 4.62 lakhs (Census largely on the reserve for daily subsistence

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 413

( Vasundhara, 2006; Mishra, 2010). A study Pressures : The major pressure that the SBR
conducted by Vasundhara (2006) exhibits that faces is because of the extraction of forest
the forest produce constitutes more than 50 per resources by local people. Fuelwood7 is found
cent of the local household income in Similipal. to be the single most energy source for people
The sheer increased number of people and their living inside the reserve (Vasundhara, 2006).
growing need for subsistence affect biodiversity, Livestock population in the SBR has increased
both directly and indirectly. One of the direct substantially, which has led to over-grazing of
consequences of increased population growth forest pastures (Singh, 1998). Often the domestic
has been the expansion of agriculture activities cattle stray into the tiger habitat for grazing
in and around the SBR. Agriculture and animal because of shortage of fodder in buffer zone
husbandry alter the biological diversity by resulting in cattle lifting and hence, economic
destroying or modifying the native biota (Rath loss to local people. Between the year 1990 and
and Sutar, 2004). Around 20 per cent of forest 2000 the total number of cattle killed in such
land within the biosphere reserve has been cases was 219 (Rath and Sutar, 2004). Besides,
reported encroached by local people for encroachment of forest land area for cultivation
agriculture activities since 1995 (ibid). Though by local people has changed the land use pattern.
grazing is prohibited in the core area of Similipal The Maoist attack in different parts of the SBR
Sanctuary, around 50,000 livestock graze inside (specifically on the tourist guesthouses),
the reserve daily (Singh, 1999). Cattle from up to affected the tourist inflow into the reserve during
a distance of 5-7 km from the Reserve boundary 2009-10. All these pressures adversely affect the
also graze inside the reserve (ibid) which exert state of environment of the biosphere reserve.
pressure on the SBR. The livestock population in States : The above mentioned pressures have
the core area has also been increased around adversely affected the state of the environment
three times since 1991 (Rath and Sutar, 2004; of the SBR. The loss of forests and forest cover,
Rout, 2008). and degradation of dense forest have reduced
Poor infrastructure facilities, non- the wildlife habitat, specially the habitats of
availability of basic amenities and conflicting elephants, mammals and reptiles and many
interests between local people and the forest endangered species (CSE, 2002). Again the loss
department officials, which often create space of forest cover and forest areas have its impact
for naxal activities 4, have collectively put on the life of people who largely depended on
enormous pressure on the biosphere reserve. forest products. As a result of massive
Moreover, the frequent forest fire by the NTFP degradation of forests and dwindling livelihood
collectors, smugglers, poachers and grazers, options, some people migrated to nearby urban
adversely affect the condition of SBR. Between areas for seeking jobs or working as labourers.
the years 1991 to 2000, around 100 sq km of Forest cover loss also affected the climate of
forest was burnt due to forest fire (Rath and Sutar, the region in general and of the SBR in particular
2004). Poaching of wild animals as a cultural (World Bank, 2008). Besides, the natural and
practice, locally known as Akhand Shikar, 5 add man-made forest fire especially during summer
additional pressure to the SBR. Further, the local have reduced flora in mountain and forest
village level institutions (both formal and areas bringing soil erosion, loss of soil and have
informal) functioning inside SBR fail to address threatened wild animals (Rath and Sutar, 2004).
these problems adequately (Vasundhara, 2006). Finally, it is to be noted that pressures from human
Besides, the natural drivers, such as droughts6, activities have changed and is also changing the
foster pressure on SBR. biological, physical and chemical conditions of
the SBR.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

414 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

Impacts : The changing biological, physical and steps that the SBR authority has taken is the
chemical conditions of the SBR have resulted in relocation10 of core area villages where the
serous impacts on wildlife and human density of wildlife population is high and the
livelihoods. In fact, the altered state of the negotiations with other three villagers are on
environment in the SBR has disturbed the for relocations. Several other steps that are taken
human-wildlife ecological equilibrium. The by the authority are the provision of better access
forests of the reserve have been reduced by 30 to health, education and sanitation; provision of
per cent during the last 30-40 years causing a non-farm employment to local people in order
decline in wildlife population by 50 per cent (Rath to reduce the dependency on forest resources;
and Sutar, 2004). Again, the percentage change patronage of eco-tourism inside the SBR which
in the dense forest area declined from -3.01 per has huge potential to improve local livelihoods
cent in the year 1984-85 to -2.88 per cent in the and formation of local institutions11 for better
year 2004-05. Forest degradation and conservation activities. Efforts are also being
deforestation also affected the social cohesion. made towards providing wildlife education,
Resource scarcity resulted in conflicts between spreading awareness, research and training for
forest department and local people and breaking local people by different government
down of local institutions. The SBR witnessed organisations and NGOs (Rout, 2008). Though
increasing trend of human-wildlife conflicts in many development activities are being run by
and around the reserve. Though death due to the government towards the livelihood
wild animal attack 8 is less in number, the crop improvement and biodiversity conservation, how
raiding by the elephants is a common event effective these initiatives are in meeting the
inside the reserve (ibid).The declining ecosystem requirements needs further examination.
services of the SBR owing to forest degradation However, the responses from both Central and
and deforestation, dwindling agricultural the State governments to the threats of loss of
products, non-availability of basic amenities and biodiversity especially to the wildlife, have led
poor sanitation are the major cause of to the completion of many projects for
malnutrition in the SBR (Vasundhara, 2006). conservation of wildlife. ‘Project Tiger’, a major
Repeated forest fire9 severely damaged the flora conservation initiative of the Government of
and fauna in several parts of the SBR (CSE, 2002). India, was launched in 1973 to save the tiger
Although population of leopards and other wild from extinction. Similipal tiger reserve was one
cats increased in Similipal, the population of tiger of the nine such reserves chosen in the country
has not increased to such extent and the reason for launching the Project Tiger. Again, the ‘Project
is attributed to the human interference in the Elephant’ as a conservation strategy for elephant
tiger habitat (Rath and Sutar, 2004). Wild dogs and its habitat was launched in 1992 and over
have become rare and even hares are no more 7000 sq.km of Similipal area was added to it.
frequently met within the denuded area (ibid). Besides, the Mugger Crocodile Project was
Moreover, the declined tourist inflow into the introduced in Ramtirtha area of Similipal in order
reserve in 2009 due to Maoist violence adversely to provide protection to the endangered
affected the revenue from eco-tourism which Crocodiles. However, the SBR requires more
further affected the development projects in the measures for the in-situ protection of forests,
region (Government of Odisha, 2008). conservation of a number of endangered and
medicinal plants and also towards the
Responses : In response to the above problems, improvement of local livelihoods of the
the biosphere authorities, in particular, and the indigenous people living inside the reserve.
government of Odisha, in general, have taken a
Although the DPSIR framework provides
few corrective measures. One of the important
a complete and integrated analysis of factors
Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013
Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 415

affecting biodiversity conservation, the present Studies found that education makes
study primarily focuses on the link between the fuelwood collection increasingly unprofitable
driving forces and the pressure exerted on the due to higher opportunity costs of labour as
reserve and suggests some suitable responses/ education creates opportunities for off-farm
policy measures. In this context, we have made employment, self-employment and facilitate
an attempt to identify and analyse the factors out-migration for better jobs that reduce
that influence the extent of extraction of NTFPs dependence on forest resources (Godoy and
by villages located in and around the SBR using Contrer, 2001; Adhikari et al., 2004). Better-
village level secondary data. educated households have more access to a
wider range of income opportunities and thus
Understanding the Factors Affecting the
lower forest income (Godoy and Contreras, 2001;
Extraction of NTFPs by Villages in the SBR
Adhikari et al., 2004; Fisher, 2004).
As mentioned above, people living in and
around the SBR are critically dependent on The relationship between the
forests for their livelihood. It is found that 50 per landholding size of a household and
cent of annual household income comes from dependency on NTFPs is an ambiguous one. Few
forest, 20 per cent from agriculture and the empirical studies suggest that higher the
remaining 30 per cent comes from wage labour landholding size, the more forest resources will
(Vasundhara, 2006). Further, income from forests be required to maintain fertility (Adhikari et al.,
are largely derived by selling honey, Sal seed, 2004; Adhikari, 2005) whereas others opine that
Jhuna (Sal Latex), Paluo, Sal Leaf, Siali leaf, Siali higher crop income from more land leads to
fiber, etc12. lower relative forest income (Blaikie and
Coppard, 1998) or the households with less land
The present study is the first attempt to
use forests more (Fisher, 2004). With regard to
understand the village characteristics of
livestock holding, it is found that the more
resources extraction in the SBR. Various factors
livestock may require more forest resources
may influence household utilisation of forest
required as feed (Adhikari et al., 2004; Adhikari,
resources. What follows is a brief review of
2005) and more collection of forest products
related literatures from different regions.
during herding (Olsen and Larsen, 2003) whereas
It is observed that households with larger more livestock population constitute a major
size collect more forest products and clear more household asset endowment and thereby higher
forest as compared to smaller size households livestock income leads to lower relative forest
primarily because these households have more income (Rayamajhi et al., 2012).
workers and more mouths to feed (Almeida,
1992). Studies found that larger families have a As a whole, higher total household
greater demand for natural resources and more income (and wealth) in the form of improved
labour to fulfill this demand, leading to higher off-farm employment opportunities (Angelsen
forest income (Almeida, 1992; Adhikari et al., and Kaimowitz, 1999), access to credit and better
2004). However, it appears that household agriculture production may reduce dependency
composition, gender and age structure are more on forest resources. As income rises, the
important than the mere numbers (ibid). Having importance of NTFPs in the household economy
more number of female population in a shrinks, as the economic importance of other
household implies more dependency on forest income sources, such as agriculture, wage
produce as in a male dominated society females employment and self-employment would rise
are engaged in the collection of NTFPs while relative to the income from environmental
males are involved in other income generating resources (Godoy et al., 1998). On the other hand,
activities (Heltberg et al., 2000). better asset endowments allow households to

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

416 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

exploit more forest resources and thus higher local villages on the SBR we have used two
income from NTFPs (Escobal and Aldana, 2003). dependent variables: (1) average income of the
So, the relationship is ambiguous in nature. village from the collection of NTFPs and (2) total
average income of the village. The idea is to
In addition to the internal factors
identify and analyse the characteristics of villages
discussed above, external factors, such as market
that are more likely to depend on the SBR and
access, influence household decisions towards
derive policy implications for reducing pressure
the use of forest resources in a significant way. It
on the same. With regard to independent
is found that greater access to market may often
variables several socio-economic and
accelerate forest extraction and induce people
geographical characteristics of sampled villages
to earn more income by selling forest produce
are considered and hypothesised as under.
in the market (Angelsen and Kaimowitz, 1999).
Average household size of the village is
Whereas, others suggest that good market
hypothesised to have a positive impact on NTFPs
access imply lower forest income as alternative
income as larger families demand more natural
income opportunities are better (Ndoye and
resources leading to higher income from NTFPs.
Kaimowitz, 2000). Hence, the relationship
Number of females in a family is
between market access and NTFPs income is
expected to have a positive effect on
assumed to be ambiguous.
household’s NTFP income as it is observed in
Methods and Data : The data used in this study studies that female members are involved more
were extracted from a report 13 prepared by the in collecting NTFPs from the forest compared to
Similipal Forest Department with the help of their male counterparts. This is because male
Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM), members are usually involved more in
Bhopal. The report contains the data related to agriculture, wage earning and in other non-farm
basic socio-economic characteristics and the employment activities (Heltberg et al., 2000).
market value of NTFP collection of 136 sampled Following the dominant view in the literature,
villages located in and around the SBR. The data the total literacy rate in the sample village (as a
were collected during the year 2007-08 from proxy for education) is hypothesised to have a
three zones: core, buffer and transitional. The negative impact on the NTFPs income. As the
sampled villages were distributed across the members of a family become educated, the
three zones in the following way. From the core dependency on forest shrinks gradually because
zone all the four (100 per cent sample) villages of higher opportunity costs involved as better
were selected. From the buffer zone out of 61 employment opportunities can be had outside
villages, 12 villages (20 per cent sample) were (Godoy and Contreras, 2001; Adhikari et al., 2004;
sampled using random sampling technique. In Fisher, 2004).
the case of transitional zone, out of 1200 villages,
Landholding size is another important
120 villages (10 per cent sample) were sampled
factor hypothesised to influence household
for data collection. Although data set has few
NTFPs income. Some are of the opinion that
limitations in terms of restricted number of
landholding size has a negative impact on forest
variables, in this paper we have made an attempt
dependency, while others find a negative
to identify and analyse factors that are likely to
relation between the two. Hence, the
affect the extent of extraction of NTFP collection
relationship between landholding size and NTFPs
by these villages for a better understanding of
income is assumed to be ambiguous. Same
the relation between driving forces and pressure.
relation is being observed with regard to livestock
Variable Description and Hypotheses : In holding and NTFPs income (Adhikari et al., 2004;
order to understand the level of dependency of Adhikari, 2005; Rayamajhi et al., 2012). The

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 417

distance of the community to the nearest market the village as one of the dependent variables
is used as a proxy for market access, whose and regressed with a host of independent
relation with the forest dependency is also variables, including the average NTFP income. It
ambiguous. is expected that in subsistence economy, such
as in Mayurbhanj, the share of NTFP income in
With regard to the understanding of share the total income would be a significantly
of NTFPs income in the total household income, positive one. Table 1 presents the description of
which includes livestock, agriculture and non- variables included in the econometric analysis
farm activities, we have included, as mentioned of determinants of average NTFPs income and
above, the average total household income of average total income.
Table 1: Description of Variables Included in the Econometric Analysis of Determinants of
Average NTFPs Income and Average Total Income
Expected Effect Expected Effect
Variable Definition on Average on Average
NTFPs Income Total Income
Ln NTFPs Log of average household income Dependent ?
Income obtained from the selling of Variable
NTFPs in the prevailing market
price (in rupees) per village
LN Total Log of average household total ? Dependent
Income income (sum total of average Variable
household agriculture income,
livestock income, NTFPs
income and others) in
rupees per village
Ave. Fuelwood Average household consumption ?
consumption of fuelwood per week (in kg)
People involved Number of people involved in
in wage earning wage earning (either in
government or in private
jobs) per household +
Female Population Number of female members
in a household +
Total Literacy rate Percentage number of people
with the ability to read and
write in a village ? +
Ave. Landholding Average household landholding ? +
Size in acre
Ave. Livestock Average number of livestock
population population per household ? +
Distance to Distance to nearest ? +
nearest Market market (in km)
Ave house Average number of household + ?
hold Size population
D1 Dummy variable= 1, if the village
is coming under transitional
zone and 0, otherwise ?
D2 Dummy variable= 1, if the village
is coming under buffer zone
and 0, otherwise ?
Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013
418 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

The relationship between the dependent and (OLS) regression. The basic OLS estimation for
the above mentioned independent variables can the determinants of average NTFPs income and
be estimated by using the ordinary least squares the average total household income takes the
form:
log NTFP Income = α + β1aveHHsize + β2female HHpo p + β3total literacy + β4aveHH land size +
β5aveHH livestock pop + β6 log total income + β7market distace + β8D1 + β9D2 + ε1 ............. (1)
log total income = α + β1total literacy + β2aveHH fuel wood cons + β3aveHH size + β4aveHH land size
+ β5aveHH livestock pop + β6wage earners HH + β7market distance + β8 log NTFP income + ε2
............. (2)

Table 2 : Summary Statistics of the Variables

Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
Ave. Fuelwood consumption_HH 136 131.871 82.759 0.000 514.000
People involved in wage earning_HH 136 2.053 1.090 0.000 6.329
Ln NTFPs Income_Vilage 136 7.419 1.741 1.000 10.922
LN Total Income_Vilage 136 8.372 0.939 5.513 10.937
Female Population_HH 136 2.789 0.805 1.000 6.651
Total Literacy rate_Vilage 136 36.741 18.780 2.500 100.000
Ave. Landholding Size_HH 136 1.285 1.547 0.333 11.000
Ave. Livestock population_HH 136 10.831 7.982 2.000 57.000
Distance to nearest Market (km) 136 13.199 16.133 1.000 120.000
Ave HH Size 136 5.640 1.524 3.000 13.000
Descriptive statistics of the variables used in the significant (at 10 per cent level) effect on NTFPs
models are provided in Table 2. As can be income, indicating that male members in the
observed, the average household size of the family are more likely to play role in the NTFPs
sampled villages in and around the SBR is 5.64. collection, and thus the income. Average
Literacy rate in these villages are 36 percentage, landholding size of the household has a
which is significantly low compared to the district significant negative (at the level of 5 per cent)
and State level. The average distance to market on the NTFPs income, meaning that more the
land, the less will be the dependency on forest
is found to be 13 kms, which suggest that villages
produce. Because the household having more
are having no easy access to market. landholding may be getting better agriculture
Results and Discussion : Table 3 presents the produce or involved in productive farm activity.
results of OLS model of the determinants of the The average livestock population per household
income from NTFPs collection in the SBR. Overall, is found to have a positive significant (at 10 per
cent level) effect on forest produce, indicating
model is found to be highly significant with an r-
that the local households are extracting more
square of 78 per cent. forest resource to feed and herd the livestock
The number of women in household has and thereby getting more income by selling
a negative (contrary to the expected effect) and animal products.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 419

The total income per village has a households’ labour allocation to this activity.The
positive effect on the income from NTFPs and two locational variables are found to be
the effect is highly significant at 5 per cent. This significant and have positive effect on forest
indicates that the increase in total income dependency. The villages coming under the
(including agriculture, livestock, wage earnings, buffer and transitional zone are highly
etc.) does not reduce the village dependency dependent on the forest produce and getting
on the forest produce and more forest extraction more income from NTFPs collection compared
leads to higher NTFPs income. This may be to the core zone villages. This may be due to the
because of the fact that collection of NTFP may fact that the buffer and transitional area villages
not involve cost to the households, except might have better market access as compared
opportunity cost of time, which may attract to the core areas villages.

Table 3: OLS Regression Results of Determinants of Average NTFPs Income

Variables Coef. Std. Err. t P>t

D1 3.942 0.898 4.39* 0.000

D2 3.363 0.754 4.46* 0.000
Female Population_HH -0.360 0.211 -1.70** 0.091
Total Literacy rate_Vilage 0.001 0.004 0.24 0.809
Ave. Landholding Size_HH -0.394 0.113 -3.50* 0.001
Ave. Livestock population_HH 0.018 0.011 1.63*** 0.105
LN Total Income_Vilage 1.338 0.081 16.52* 0.000
Distance to nearest Market (km) 0.003 0.005 0.61 0.542
Ave HH Size 0.163 0.113 1.45 0.149
Constant -7.245 1.234 -5.87* 0.000
Number of obs 136
F( 9, 126) 51.8*
Prob > F 0.000
R-squared 0.787
Adj R-squared 0.772
Root MSE 0.831

Note: * 1% significance level; ** 5% significance level; *** 10% significance level.

Table 4 presents the OLS results of collection of NTFPs forms a significant part of
determinants of average total income of the household income. This means higher the
villages in and around the SBR.The overall model income from NTFP higher is the total income of
is highly significant with an r-square of 69 per the village/household. The average household
cent. size has a significantly (at 10 per cent level)
The coefficient of income from NTFPs has positive impact on the total income, meaning
turned out to be positive and highly significant that the larger the household size, the more the
(at 1per cent level or less) indicating that the average total income of the household. This is

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

420 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

because more people will be engaged in income landholding size is more.The distance to nearest
generating activities (particularly in the collection market place has a significant (10 percent level)
of NTFPs) leading to higher total income. Average negative effect on total income, indicating that
landholding size has a highly significant (at 1per the village households nearer to market places
cent level or less) positive impact on total income are likely to have more income in comparison
indicating that households having more lands to the far away village households. This is
are likely to have more average total income. obvious because households closer to market
This may also mean that the share of income can sell their products easily and hence have
from agriculture is likely to be more as the more income.

Table 4: OLS Results of Determinants of Average Total Income

Variable Coef. Robust Std. Err. t P>t
Total Literacy rate_Vilage -0.001 0.003 -0.310 0.756
Ave. Fuelwood consumption_HH 0.001 0.001 1.210 0.230
Ave HH Size 0.058 0.030 1.960*** 0.052
Ave. Landholding Size_HH 0.380 0.061 6.270* 0.000
Ave. Livestock population_HH -0.001 0.007 -0.130 0.896
People involved in wage earning_HH -0.021 0.047 -0.440 0.659
Distance to nearest Market (km)_Village -0.006 0.003 -1.780*** 0.077
Ln NTFPs Income_Vilage 0.478 0.054 8.790* 0.000
constant 4.087 0.413 9.890* 0.000
N 136
F (8,127) 22.85*
Prob>F 0.000
R-square 0.689
Root MSE .54
Note: * 1% significance level; ** 5% significance level; *** 10% significance level.

Conclusions factors that influence the extraction of resources

from the SBR with the help of econometric tools
In this study we have made an attempt
(OLS regression).The analysis of DPSIR framework
to understand the complex relationship between
provided a broader understanding of how the
biodiversity conservation and promotion of local
driving forces, such as changing population
livelihoods in SBR using secondary literature and
dynamics, increasing economic activities, rising
information. First, we have reviewed the existing
social tensions, etc., have put enormous pressure
empirical studies on the SBR systematically by
on the SBR leading to change in the state of the
using the DPSIR framework in order to have a
environment which has resulted in various
comprehensive and clear understanding of the
impacts, such as loss of habitats and wild species
various interactions between biodiversity
and loss of livelihoods and so on.
conservation and local livelihoods. Second, by
using the secondary data of 136 villages located The empirical results suggest that
in and around the SBR, the study analyses various villages located in and around the SBR are

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 421

dependent more on the reserve for their including patrolling and infrastructure
sustenance. More importantly, the results development works, etc. In addition, access to
suggest that the villages having low landholding education can also go long way in providing
size are likely to extract more NTFPs from the alternative livelihood opportunities to the local
reserve which indicates that poor villages are people. The second set of measures should be
dependent more on the SBR. Because of low framed for promoting sustainable use and
opportunity costs involved in collection of NTFP management of the SBR. In this context, attention
the share of NTFP income to the total income of must be focused in strengthening local level
the household increases as the total income community and/or village institutions that can
rises. Interestingly, villages located in buffer and restrain excess use of resources from the reserve
transitional zones extract more NTFPs compared by framing rules and regulations (Ostrom, 1990;
to the villages located in core zone of the SBR. Heltberg, 2001; Adhikari, 2005; Behera, 2009).
This can be attributed to the fact that villages As indicated, a variety of local level community
located in transitional and buffer zones are having institutions (e.g., JFM, EDC, green gaurd) exists
relatively easy access to market as compared to in and around the SBR but majority of them are
the core zone villages. Therefore, it is essential often found to be not effective. Devolving
to take necessary measures in order to reduce sufficient property rights over forest resources
anthropogenic pressure on the SBR. to local communities may help secure their
broad-based and active participation in decision
In this context, the first set of measures
making process, which may result in positive
should be adopted for reducing the direct
change in the attitude of local population
household dependency on the SBR for
towards conservation of biodiversity, as
livelihoods. The measures could be in the form
experienced in African countries where forest
of the provision of non-farm activities in tourism
department and local communities are
sector (Hvenegaard & Dearden, 1998;
managing the wildlife jointly. In this regard, the
Bookbinder et al., 1998; Gossling, 1999; Sekhar,
role of NGOs and forest department is critical in
2003), promotion of local handicrafts industries,
evolving co-management system for wildlife and
engaging local people in various forest activities
its habitats.
Notes
1 According to the World Bank (2002), more than 1.6 billion people throughout the world rely
heavily on forests for their livelihoods and some 350 million people depend only on forests,
both for their subsistence and income (Mahapatra et al., 2005; Howell et al., 2010). It is found
that more than 65 per cent PAs are characterised by human settlements and resource use
(World Bank, 1995) who use forest extensively (Godoy et al., 1998; Cavendish, 2000; Fisher,
2004).
2 For instance, over-grazing by cattle and removal of dead branches and dry leaves from the
ground can alter the nutrient dynamics and constant movement of livestock and humans
inside the PAs may disturb the normal life of the wild habitats (Sekhar, 1998).
3 The European Environmental Agency (EEA) introduced the DPSIR (Driving Forces- Pressures-
State-Impacts- Responses), a conceptual framework describing the environmental problems
and their relationships with the socio-economic indicators (See Figure 1). According to the
DPSIR framework, social and economic developments (D) put Pressures (P) on the environment,
leading to the physical, chemical or biological change in the State of the environment. This

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

422 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

leads to Impacts on ecosystems, human health, and society, which require a societal Response
(R) based on Driving Forces, State or Impacts indicators through various mitigation, adaptation
or curative actions (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003; Maxim, 2009).
4 The savage Maoist attack in the year 2009 has severely destroyed the reserve’s infrastructure.
5 Akhand Shikar’ is considered to be one singular custom that results in large-scale killing of wild
animals.
6 According to Kanungo (2010), 2,460 villages in Mayurbhanj district in which the SBR falls are
found to be highly affected by frequent occurrences of drought.
7 Almost 100 per cent households living in and around the SBR use fuelwood as major energy
source (Vasundhara, 2006).
8 Most of the cases of tiger attack happened between 1973 and 1990 when more than six
deaths were reported and, a few persons have been injured or killed by elephants attack
(Singh, 1999).
9 Between the years 1991–2000, around 100 sq. km. of forest was burnt due to forest fire (Rout,
2008) and is a major cause of soil erosion and death of ground flora and fauna.
10 Out of four villages inside the core area, one has already been displaced to the transitional area
in 2010.
11 The Government of Odisha, through its Joint Forest Management (JFM) Resolution (2008),
adopted eco-development programme as a strategy for securing support from local
communities in PA management. Eco-development Comm-ittees (EDCs) along the lines of
Vana Surakhya Samiti (VSS) provide a strong linkage between conservation and development
in order to meet the ecological demands, as well as to protect the SBR.
12 It is also observed that in Khadia and Mankidia villages 60 to 100 per cent of the annual income
of the families comes from forest produces (Vasundhara, 2006).
13 A socio-economic study on Similipal Biosphere Reserve (IIFM, 2007).

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 423

References
1. Adams, W. M., Aveling, R., Brockington, D., Dickson, B., Elliott, J., Hutton, J., Roe, D., Vira, B., and
Wolmer, W. (2004), Biodiversity Conservation and the Eradication of Poverty, Science, 306,
(5699), 1146–1149.
2. Adhikari, B. (2005), Poverty, Property Rights and Collective Action: Understanding the
Distributive Aspects of Common Property Resource Management, Environment and
Development Economics, 10, (1), 7 – 31.
3. Adhikari, B., Falco, S. D., and Lovett, J. C. (2004), Household Characteristics and Forest
Dependence: Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal, Ecological
Economics, 42, (2), 245–257.
4. Agrawal, A., and Gibson, C. (1999), Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of ‘ Community’
in Natural Resource Conservation, World Development, 27, (4), 629-49.
5. Almeida, A. L .O. (1992), The Colonization of the Amazon, Texas University of Texas Press.
6. Amacher, G. S., Hyde, W. F., and Kanel, K. R. (1999), Nepali Fuelwood Production and
Consumption: Regional and Household Distinctions, Substitution and Successful Intervention,
The Journal of Development Studies, 35, (4), 138–163.
7. Angelsen, A., and Kaimowitz, D. (1999), Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons
from Economic Models, The World Bank Research Observer, 14, (1), 73– 98.
8. Arnold, M., and Townson, I. (1998), Assessing the Potential of Forest Product Activities to
Contribute to Rural Incomes in Africa, Natural Resource Perspectives, 37, (November), 1-10.
9. Baland, J. M., and Platteau, J. P. (1996), Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a
Role for Rural Communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press.
10. Banerjee, A. (2010), Tourism in Protected Areas: Worsening Prospects for Tigers? Economic &
Political Weekly, 45, (10), 27–29.
11. Bashir, S. (2000), Land Use Conflicts in Indian Protected Areas: The Case of Wayanad Wildlife
Sanctuary, PhD Thesis, Cambridge University.
12. Blaikie, P., and Coppard, D. (1998), Environmental Change and Livelihood Diversification in
Nepal: Where is the Problem? Himalayan Research Bulletin, 18, (2), 28– 39.
13. Bookbinder, M. P., Dinerstein, E., Rijal, A., Cauley, H., and Rajouria, A. (1998), Ecotourism’s
Support of Biodiversity Conservation, Conservation Biology, 12, (6), 1399-1404.
14. Bulte, E., and Engel, S. (2006), Conservation of Tropical Forests: Addressing Market Failure, In L.
R. Stiglitz & J. M. Toman (Eds.), Sustainable Development: New Options and Policies (pp. 412–
453), New York: Oxford University Press.
15. Census of India Report, (2001), Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
16. Census of India Report, (2007), Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner,
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi.
17. Chambers, N., Simmons, C., and Wackernagel, M. (2000), Sharing Nature's Interest: Ecological
Footprints as an Indicator of Sustainability, London: Earthscan.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

424 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

18. Chileshe, R. A. (2005), Land Tenure and Rural Livelihoods in Zambia: Case Studies of Kamena
and St. Joseph, PhD Thesis, University of Western Cape.
19. Cocks, M. L., Bangay, L., Shackleton, C. M., and Wiersum, K. F. (2008), Rich Man Poor Man–Inter-
household and Community Factors Influencing the Use of Wild Plant Resources Amongst
Rural Households in South Africa, International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology, 15, 198 –210.
20. Escobal, J., and Aldana, U. (2003), Are Non-timber Forest Products the Antidote to Rainforest
Degradation? Brazil Nut Extraction in Madre De Dios, Peru, World Development, 31, (11),
1873–1887.
21. Fisher, M. (2004), Household Welfare and Forest Dependence in Southern Malawi,
Environment and Development Economics, 9, (2), 135–l54.
22. Godoy, R. et al., (1998), Strategies of Rain-forest Dwellers Against Misfortunes: The Tsimane’
Indians of Bolivia, Ethnology, 37, (1), 55– 69.
23. Godoy, R., and Contreras, M. (2001), A Comparative Study of Education and Tropical
Deforestation Among Lowland Bolivian Amerindians: Forest Values, Environmental Externality,
and School Subsidies, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 49, (3), 555–574.
24. Gossling, S. (1999), Ecotourism: A Means to Safeguard Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functions?
Ecological Economics, 29, 303-320.
25. Heinen, J. T. (1996), Human Behavior, Incentives and Protected Area Management,
Conservation Biology, 10, (2), 681–684.
26. Heltberg, R. (2001), Determinants and Impact of Local Institutions for Common Resource
Management, Environment and Development Economics, 6, (2), 183–208.
27. Heltberg, R., Arndt, T. C., and Sekhar, N. U. (2000), Fuelwood Consumption and Forest
Degradation: A Household Model for Domestic Energy Consumption in Rural India, Land
Economics, 76, (2), 213–232.
28. Hvenegaard, G. T., and Dearden, P. (1998), Linking Ecotourism and Biodiversity Conservation:
A Case Study of Doi Inthanon National Park,Thailand, Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography,
19, (2), 193-211.
29. Impact of Conservation Policies (Specific Focus on NTFP Ban Order by Supreme Court) on
Lives and Livelihood of Local People Living in and Around the Protected Areas (2006),
Vasundhara, Accessed at:
http://www.vasundharaorissa.org/Research%20Reports/ mpact%20of%20NTFP%
20ban%20on%20the%20lives%20and%20livelihood%20of%20the%20 local%20people%
20in%20and%20around%20PAs.pdf. (22 June 2012).
30. Kanungo, D. R. (2010), Odisha Diary, Accessed at: http://www.hindu.com/2010/01/23/stories/
2010012355250300.htm. (20 May 2012).
31. Kiss, A. (1990), Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation
in Africa, Washington, DC: World Bank.
32. Kothari, A., Pathak, N., Anuradha, R. V., and Taneja, B. (1998), Community and Conservation:
Natural Resource Management in South and Central Asia, New Delhi, Sage Publication.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

Biodiversity Conservation and Local Livelihoods 425

33. Kumar, S. (2002), Wildlife Tourism in India: Need to Tread with Care, In B. D. Sharma (Ed.),
Indian Wildlife: Threats and Preservation, (pp 72 - 94), New Delhi: Anmol Publications.
34. Laudati, A. A. (2010), The Encroaching Forest: Struggles Over Land and Resources on the
Boundary of Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda, Society and Natural Resources, 23,
(8), 776–789.
35. Linde-Rahr, M. (2003), Property Rights and Deforestation: The Choice of Fuelwood Source in
Rural Viet Nam, Land Economics, 79, (2), 217–234.
36. Macura, B., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., Grau-Satorras, M., Demps, K., Laval, M., Garci, C. A., and
Reyes-García, V. (2011), Local Community Attitudes Toward Forests Outside Protected Areas
in India: Impact of Legal awareness, Trust, and Participation, Ecology and Society, 16, (3), 1-10.
37. Mishra, B. K. (2010), Conservation and Management Effectiveness of Similipal Biosphere
Reserve, Orissa, India, The Indian Forester, 136, (10), 1310-1326.
38. Ndoye, O., and Kaimowitz, D. (2000), Macro-economics, Markets and the Humid Forests of
Cameroon, 1967–1997, Journal of Modern African Studies, 38, (2), 225–253.
39. Nepal, S. K., and Weber, K. E. (1995), Managing Resources and Resolving Conflicts: National
Parks and Local People, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology,
2, (1), 11–25.
40. Olsen, C. S., and Larsen, H. O. (2003), Alpine Medicinal Plant Trade and Himalayan Mountain
Livelihood Strategies, The Geographical Journal, 169, (3), 243–254.
41. Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Rath, B., and Sutar, P. C. (2004), Human Issues in Protected Areas: A Case Study in Similipal
Tiger Reserve, Studies in Protected Areas, (March), 1-33.
43. Rayamajhi, S. (2012), Empirical Evidence of the Economic Importance of Central Himalayan
Forests to Rural Households, Forest Policy and Economics, 20, (2012), 25–35.
44. Rout S. D. (2008), Anthropogenic Threats and Biodiversity Conservation in Similipal Biosphere
Reserve, Orissa, India, Tiger Paper, 35, (3), 22 -26.
45. Rout S. D., Panda S. K., Mishra, N., and Panda,T. (2010), Role of Tribals in Collection of Commercial
Non-Timber Forest Products in Mayurbhanj District, Orissa, Studies of Tribes Tribals, 8, (1), 21-
25.
46. Sanderson, E. W., Jaiteh, M., Levy, M. A., Redford, K. H., Wannebo, A.V., and Woolmer, G. (2002),
The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild, Bioscience, 52, (10), 891–904.
47. Scheyvens, R. (2007), Exploring the Tourism-Poverty Nexus, In C. M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism:
Who Benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction, (pp. 121–144), Clevedon,
England: Channel View.
48. Sekhar, N. U. (1998), Crop and Livestock Depredation Caused by Wild Animals in Protected
Areas: The Case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India, Environmental Conservation, 25,
(2), 160–171.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013

426 Madhusmita Dash and Bhagirath Behera

49. Sekhar, N. U. (2003), Local People’s Attitudes Towards Conservation and Wildlife Tourism
Around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India, Journal of Environmental Management, 69, (4), 339–
347.
50. Shaanker, R.U., Ganeshaiah, K. N., Rao, M. N., and Aravind, N. A. (2004), Ecological Consequences
of Forest Use: From Genes to Ecosystem-a Case Study in the Biligiri Rangaswamy Temple
Wildlife Sanctuary, South India, Conservation and Society, 2, (2), 347–363.
51. Shahabuddin, G., and Kumar, R. (2007), Effects of Extractive Disturbance on Bird Assemblages,
Vegetation Structure and Floristic in Tropical Scrub Forest, Sariska Tiger Reserve, India, Forest
Ecology and Management, 246, (2–3), 175–185.
52. Singh, L. A. K. (1998), Wildlife Wealth of Similipal: A Glimpse, Workshop Journal, District
Environmental Society, Mayurbhanj, Orissa, India, 38-41.
53. Singh, S. (1999), Assessing the Management Effectiveness of Wildlife Protected Areas in
India, Parks, 9, 234-249.
54. Sobrevila, C. (2008), The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural
but Often Forgotten Partners, Washington, DC: World Bank.
55. World Bank Report, (1995), The Environmental Sector in Viet Nam, Washington, DC: World
Bank.
56. World Bank Report, (2008), Climate Change Impacts in Drought and Flood Affected Areas:
Case Studies in India.

Journal of Rural Development, Vol. 32, No. 4, Oct - Dec. : 2013