Skip to main content

Effects of participatory forest management on livelihood capitals of the community in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh


In Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, we surveyed 80 households to observe the effects of participatory forestry (PF) on the livelihood of local participants. We analyzed the effects on livelihood capitals to compare in two ways: (1) before and after participation, and (2) participants and non-participants. In Cox’s Bazar, there were some significant changes regarding income sources, but annual income was little changed after participation in participatory forestry. Literacy (about 10 % after participation) and mobile phone ownership (75 %) were significantly higher than before. Housing conditions were better (brick walls: 7.5 %; sun-grass roof: 70 %) than those of non-participants (brick walls: 0 %; sun-grass roof: 77.5 %). PF ensured legal rights on forest lands for participants, while non-participants were illegally living on public forestland. However, expenses were considerably higher than income; people were still struggling with poverty and many of them suffered from malnutrition. This ultimately put pressure on all capital. People had redistributed their available capital to cope with adversity, and there was a trend toward involvement in economic activities other than forests. Our study found that social capital was more influenced by PF more than other capitals. Due to the involvement with the PF program, people were feeling much more secure, women had elevated status, and social relationships became stronger.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1


  • Bandyopadhyay S, Shyamsundar P (2004) Fuelwood consumption and participation in community forestry in India. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3331. The World Bank, Washington, DC

  • Banglapedia (2006) Document was found on Last Accessed 15 Aug 2012

  • Booth D, Holland J, Hentschel J, Lanjouw P, Herbert A (1998) Participation and combined methods in African poverty assessment: renewing the agenda. Department for International Development, Social Development Division, African Division, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Brosius JP (1997) Endangered forest, endangered people: environmentalist representations of indigenous knowledge. Hum Ecol 25:47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carney D (1998) Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. Paper presented at DFID Natural Resource Advisers Conference, 5–9 July

  • CAST (Council for Agricultural Science and Technology) (2001) Role of animal agriculture in the human food supply. Ames, USA

  • DFID (2000) Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Department for International Development, London

  • Fafchamps M, Gavian S (1997) The determinants of livestock prices in Niger. J Afr Econ 6:255–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fomete T, Vermaat J (2001) Community forestry and poverty alleviation in Cameroon. Rural Development Forestry Network. Network Paper 25 h. Overseas Development Institute, London

  • Hong HN (2005) Can Gio: Turning mangroves into riches. In: Durst PB, Brown C, Tacio HD, Ishikawa M (eds) In search of excellence: exemplary forest management in Asia and the Pacific. RAP Publication 2005=02, Asia-Pacific Forestry Commission, FAO, Bangkok, Thailand, pp 49–60

  • IIED (1995) The hidden harvest: the value of wild resources in agricultural systems. A summary. International Institute of Environment and Development, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan NA, Choudhury JK, Huda KS (2004) An overview of social forestry in Bangladesh. Forestry Sector Project, Government of Bangladesh, Dhaka

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipton M, Ravallion M (1995) Poverty and policy. In: Behrman J, Srinavasan TN (eds) Handbook of development economics, vol 3. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Maruyama M, Morioka N (1998) The impact of deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: the indigenous people of Rondonia State. J For Plan 4:71–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Maser C (1994) Sustainable forestry philosophy, science, and economics. St Lucie Press, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • McGregor JA (1998) A poverty of agency: resource management amongst the poor in Bangladesh. Paper presented to the 5th Workshop of the European Network of Bangladesh Studies, Bath

  • Mehta AK, Shah A (2003) Chronic poverty in India: Incidence, causes and policies. In: Hulme D, Shepherd A (eds) Special issue on ‘‘Chronic poverty and development policy.” W Dev 31: 491–511

  • Moser CON (1998) The asset vulnerability framework: reassessing urban Poverty reduction strategies. W Dev 26:1–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muhammed N, Koike M, Sajjaduzzaman M, Sophanarith K (2005) Reckoning social forestry in Bangladesh: policy and plan versus implementation. Forestry: an International. J For Res 78:373–383

    Google Scholar 

  • Nath TK, Inoue, M (2010) Impacts of participatory forestry on livelihoods of ethnic people: experience from Bangladesh. Soc Nat Resour 23(11):1093–1107

    Google Scholar 

  • Ontario Ministry for Natural Resources (1994) Partnerships for community involvement in forestry: a comparative analysis of community involvement in natural resource management. Queen’s Printers for Ontario, Sault Ste. Marie

  • Pearce D (1996) Global environmental value and the tropical forests: demonstration and capture. In: Adamowicz W, Boxal P, Luckert M, Phillips W, White W (eds) Forestry, economics and the environment. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 11–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Poore D (1986) The vanishing forest: the human consequences of deforestation. Zed, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam R (2001) Social capital measurement and consequences. In: Helliwell JF (ed) The contribution of human and social capital to sustained economic growth and well-being. Ottawa, Ontario, pp 117–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Rana MA, Noguchi T, Muhammed N (2007) Collaborative protected area management in Bangladesh. Impact of participatory forest management (PFM) on socio-economic development in Bangladesh: a case study in the Madhupur Sal Forest. J For Econ 53:46–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez A, Smith S (1994) A comparison of determinants of urban, rural and farm poverty in Costa Rica. W Dev 22:381–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salam AMD, Noguchi T, Koike M (1999) Present conditions and prospects of homestead forestry in Bangladesh. Asi Prof 27:523–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. IDS Working Paper 72, Institute of Development Studies 1998

  • SIS (State Institute of Statistics) (2004) General agricultural census 2001. Result of the agricultural holdings (households) survey. State Institute of Statistics, Prime Ministry Republic of Turkey No. 2924, Ankara

  • Soussan J, Blaikie P, Springate-Baginski O, Chadwick M (2001) Understanding livelihood processes and dynamics. Livelihood-Policy Relationship in South Asia Working Paper 1, University of Leeds, UK

  • Wikipedia (2010) The online document found on world wide website.’s_Bazar_District. Last visited on 17 July 2010

  • World Bank (2003) World development report 2003: Sustainable development in a dynamic world: transforming institutions, growth, and quality of life. The World Bank, Washington, DC. Oxford University Press, New York

Download references


We aregrateful to the University Grants Commission of Bangladesh for funding the research. We would also like to express our deep gratitude to Md. Hossain, Md. Abdur Rahman, and Md. Rafiqul Islam, ACFs of FD, as well as some anonymous people of the Forest Department for their assistance during our field work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abu Saleh Md. Golam Kibria.

About this article

Cite this article

Kibria, A.S.M.G., Jashimuddin, M. & Makoto, I. Effects of participatory forest management on livelihood capitals of the community in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. J For Res 19, 42–51 (2014).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Before and after
  • Livelihood
  • Participants and non-participants
  • Participatory forestry