Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 26, Issue 9, pp 2047–2066 | Cite as

Forest protection in Central India: do differences in monitoring by state and local institutions result in diverse social and ecological impacts?

  • Shivani AgarwalEmail author
  • Aniruddha Marathe
  • Rucha Ghate
  • Jagdish Krishnaswamy
  • Harini Nagendra
Original Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Forest and plantation biodiversity


Protection of forests and wildlife outside protected areas (PAs) is necessary for the conservation of wildlife. Extension of conservation efforts outside the existing PA may result in restrictions on local forest resource use. Such situations arise due to differences in understanding of forest as a resource for communities and as a conservation space for endangered species. A clearer focus is needed on the functionality and socio-ecological outcomes of different forest management institutions to address such issues. We conducted a study in a forest landscape connecting Pench and Tadoba-Andhari Tiger Reserves (TRs) in Central India. The two main forest management institutions were the Forest Department (FD) and local communities managing forest resources. We conducted vegetation surveys and focus group discussions in 15 villages selected based on presence or absence of active protection and monitoring of forest resources by either FD or local people. We found that forests with monitoring had significantly higher tree density and vegetation species richness compared to forests without monitoring. Tree density was observed to be higher in sites monitored by villagers rather than those monitored by FD. Self-regulation and resource sharing in locally monitored forests were more acceptable to local communities. In forests monitored by the FD, local communities indicated a feeling of alienation from the forest that weakened their motivation to protect the forest and wildlife. Recognition of local community rights is essential to achieve conservation goals and reduce social conflicts outside PAs, requiring collaboration between state and local institutions.


Forest institutions People participation Forest Department Bureaucracy Biodiversity 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE) under Grant Number SANDEE/July 2011/008. Comments by an anonymous reviewer on an early version were especially helpful. We thank Maharashtra Forest Division for sharing valuable information. Many thanks to Jayalakshmi Krishnan, Amit Kurien, Seema Mundoli, Sony RK, Nachiket Kelkar, Mayuresh Gangal and Vardhan Patankar for their valuable comments and feedback. Neha Mujumdar, Nojendra Landage, Rajkamal Patle, and Vinod Borkar provided excellent research assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. Afreen S, Sharma N, Chaturvedi RK, Gopalakrishnan R, Ravindranath N (2011) Forest policies and programs affecting vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 16(2):177–197. doi: 10.1007/s11027-010-9259-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agarwal S, Nagendra H, Ghate R (2016a) The influence of forest management regimes on deforestation in a Central Indian dry deciduous forest landscape. Land 5(3):27. doi: 10.3390/land5030027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agarwal S, Rocchini D, Marathe A, Nagendra H (2016b) Exploring the relationship between remotely-sensed spectral variables and attributes of tropical forest vegetation under the influence of local forest institutions. ISPRS Int J Geo Inform 5(7):117. doi: 10.3390/ijgi5070117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit Soc 29(4):485–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B (2012) lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (2011). R package version 0.999375-42Google Scholar
  6. Berkes F (2007) Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104(39):15188–15193. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702098104 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Bivand R, Hauke J, Kossowski T (2013) Computing the Jacobian in Gaussian spatial autoregressive models: an illustrated comparison of available methods. Geogr Anal 45(2):150–179. doi: 10.1111/gean.12008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonell M et al (2010) The impact of forest use and reforestation on soil hydraulic conductivity in the Western Ghats of India: implications for surface and sub-surface hydrology. J Hydrol 391:47–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brondizio ES, Ostrom E, Young OR (2009) Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: the role of social capital. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:253–278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.environ.020708.100707 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castro AP, Nielsen E (2001) Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management. Environ Sci Policy 4:229–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chaturvedi RK, Gopalakrishnan R, Jayaraman M, Bala G, Joshi N, Sukumar R, Ravindranath N (2011) Impact of climate change on Indian forests: a dynamic vegetation modeling approach. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 16(2):119–142. doi: 10.1007/s11027-010-9257-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cox M, Arnold G, Tomás SV (2010) A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecol Soc 15(4):38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Das S (2010) The strange valuation of forests in India. Econ Polit Wkly 45(9):16–18Google Scholar
  14. DeFries R, Hansen A, Newton AC, Hansen MC (2005) Increasing isolation of protected areas in tropical forests over the past twenty years. Ecol Appl 15(1):19–26. doi: 10.1890/03-5258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DeFries R, Karanth KK, Pareeth S (2010) Interactions between protected areas and their surroundings in human-dominated tropical landscapes. Biol Conserv 143(12):2870–2880. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.02.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. ENVIS Centre on Wildlife and Protected Areas (2016). Accessed 4 Jan 2017
  17. Fleischman F (2009) Informal institutions and enforcement of forest rules. POLS Y673: Networks and InstitutionsGoogle Scholar
  18. Fleischman F (2014) Why do foresters plant trees? Testing theories of bureaucratic decision-making in central India. World Dev 62:62–74. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fleischman F (2015) Understanding India’s forest bureaucracy: a review. Reg Environ Chang 16:153–165. doi: 10.1007/s10113-015-0844-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gautam A, Shivakoti G, Webb E (2004) A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int For Rev 6(2):136–148. doi: 10.1505/ifor. Google Scholar
  21. Ghate R, Nagendra H (2005) Role of monitoring in institutional performance: forest management in Maharashtra, India. Conserv Soc 3(2):509–532Google Scholar
  22. Ghate R, Ghate S, Ostrom E (2013a) Can communities plan, grow and sustainably harvest from forests? Econ Polit Wkly 48(8):59–67Google Scholar
  23. Ghate R, Ghate S, Ostrom E (2013b) Cultural norms, cooperation, and communication: taking experiments to the field in indigenous communities. Int J Commons 7(2):498–520. doi: 10.18352/ijc.376 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guha R (1983) Forestry in British and post-British India: a historical analysis. Econ Polit Wkly 18(44):1882–1896Google Scholar
  25. Guha R, Gadgil M (1989) State forestry and social conflict in British India. Past Present 123(1):141–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hayes T, Ostrom E (2005) Conserving the world’s forests: are protected areas the only way? Ind L Rev 38:595–617Google Scholar
  27. He F, Gaston KJ (2000) Estimating species abundance from occurrence. Am Nat 156(5):553–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Heltberg R, Arndt TC, Sekhar NU (2000) Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation: a household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. Land Econ 76(2):213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Joshi A, Vaidyanathan S, Mondol S, Edgaonkar A, Ramakrishnan U (2013) Connectivity of tiger (Panthera tigris) populations in the human-influenced forest mosaic of Central India. PLoS One 8:e77980CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Karanth KK, DeFries R (2010) Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: case studies from India. Biol Conserv 143:2865–2869. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krishnaswamy J et al (2012) The rain–runoff response of tropical humid forest ecosystems to use and reforestation in the Western Ghats of India. J Hydrol 472:216–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lugo AE (1997) The apparent paradox of reestablishing species richness on degraded lands with tree monocultures. For Ecol Manag 99(1):9–19. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(97)00191-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nagendra H, Pareeth S, Sharma B, Schweik CM, Adhikari KR (2008) Forest fragmentation and regrowth in an institutional mosaic of community, government and private ownership in Nepal. Landsc Ecol 23(1):41–54. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9162-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nayak PK, Berkes F (2008) Politics of co-optation: community forest management versus joint forest management in Orissa, India. Environ Manag 41(5):707–718. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9088-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14:137–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poteete AR, Ostrom E (2004) Heterogeneity, group size and collective action: the role of institutions in forest management. Dev Chang 35(3):435–461. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2004.00360.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ravindranath N, Srivastava N, Murthy IK, Malaviya S, Munsi M, Sharma N (2012) Deforestation and forest degradation in India: implications for REDD+. Curr Sci 102(8):1117–1125Google Scholar
  38. Sarin M, Singh NM, Sundar N, Bhogal RK (2003) Devolution as a threat to democratlxic decision-making in forestry? Findings from three states in India. In: Edmunds D, Wollenberg E (eds) Local forest management: the impacts of devolution policies. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Smith EP, van Belle G (1984) Nonparametric estimation of species richness. Biometrics 40(1):119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Torri MC (2011) Conservation approaches and development of local communities in India: debates, challenges and future perspectives. Int J Environ Sci 1(5):871–883Google Scholar
  41. Vasan S (2002) Ethnography of the forest guard: contrasting discourses, conflicting roles and policy implementation. Econ Polit Wkly 37(40):4125–4133Google Scholar
  42. Ver Hoef JM, Boveng PL (2007) Quasi-Poisson vs. negative binomial regression: how should we model overdispersed count data? Ecology 88(11):2766–2772. doi: 10.1890/07-0043.1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Vollan B (2008) Socio-ecological explanations for crowding-out effects from economic field experiments in southern Africa. Ecol Econ 67(4):560–573. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.01.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shivani Agarwal
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Aniruddha Marathe
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rucha Ghate
    • 3
  • Jagdish Krishnaswamy
    • 1
  • Harini Nagendra
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Biodiversity and ConservationAshoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE)BengaluruIndia
  2. 2.Manipal UniversityUdupiIndia
  3. 3.International Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentKathmanduNepal
  4. 4.Azim Premji University, School of Development, PES Institute of Technology CampusBengaluruIndia

Personalised recommendations