Multi-stakeholder
perceptions of efficiency in biodiversity conservation at limited access
forests of the southern Western Ghats, India
Arun Kanagavel 1,
Revati Pandya 2, Aditya Prithvi 3 & Rajeev Raghavan4
1,4 Durrell Institute of Conservation
and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of
Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NR, United Kingdom
1,2 Wildlife Information Liaison
Development Society (WILD), 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road,
Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035,
India
1,4 Conservation Research Group
(CRG), St. Albert’s College, Banerji Road, Kochi, Kerala 682018, India
3 Department of Econometrics,
University of Madras, Chepauk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600005, India
4 Zoo Outreach Organization
(ZOO), 96, Kumudham Nagar, Vilankurichi Road, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641035,
India
1 arun.kanagavel@gmail.com
(corresponding author), 2 revati.pandya@gmail.com, 3 solar.ads@gmail.com,
4 rajeevraq@hotmail.com
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3439.4529-36
Editor: Jeff McNeely, IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland. Date
of publication: 26 July 2013 (online & print)
Manuscript details: Ms #
o3439 | Received 16 December 2012 | Final received 13 May 2013 | Finally
accepted 01 July 2013
Citation: Kanagavel, A., R. Pandya, A. Prithvi
& R. Raghavan (2013). Multi-stakeholder perceptions of efficiency in
biodiversity conservation at limited access forests of the southern Western
Ghats, India. Journal of Threatened Taxa 5(11): 4529–4536; http://dx.doi.org/10.11609/JoTT.o3439.4529-36
Copyright: © Kanagavel et al.
2013. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. JoTT allows
unrestricted use of this article in any medium, reproduction and distribution
by providing adequate credit to the authors and the source of publication.
Funding: The study is a part of a
larger project titled “Potential for community and conservation reserves in the
southern Western Ghats” funded by the North of England Zoological Society
(NEZS) through the Chester Zoo Studentships and the Durrell Institute of
Conservation and Ecology (DICE), School of Anthropology and Conservation,
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Competing Interest: The
authors declare no competing interests. Funders had no role in study design,
data collection, results interpretation and manuscript writing.
Author
Details: Arun Kanagavel, keen on research that
would inform conservation action, is interested in social dimensions that
influence perception of nature and its conservation, and the potential of local
communities in linking biodiversity conservation and protected areas.
Revati Pandya is
interested in natural resource management, its plurality and understanding the
same through stakeholder perceptions as a basis for conflict resolution. In
relation to this, she is specifically interested in the potential of protected
areas in conservation and exploring the nature of collaborative
management.
Aditya Prithviis interested in understanding the effects of income disparity in societies and
its effect on perception towards day to day events including wildlife
conservation. He is also interested in the interaction between the various
strata of society. Rajeev Raghavanis interested in interdisciplinary research, advocacy and policy making related
to the conservation, management and sustainable use of nature and natural
resources.
Author Contribution: AK was
involved in designing, undertaking the study, data analysis and manuscript
preparation. RP, AP and RR were involved in manuscript preparation.
Acknowledgements: The first author
would like to thank A. Kumar, K. Vijayalakshmi, P.A. Kanagavel, S. Kumar, and
S. Satyanarayanan for helping with data collection and field logistics. Thanks
are also due to the local communities, forest department officials and
conservation researchers in the project area for participating in the
survey.
Abstract: Biodiversity conservation is a collaborative effort involving
numerous stakeholders. Attempting to balance different interests and developing
effective working relationships between stakeholders is vital for successfully
addressing issues of biodiversity conservation. Presently, biodiversity
conservation in India is monopolised by state forest departments (FD) with
negligible participation from local communities (who are directly affected by
forest laws) and researchers (whose work can improve conservation). This study
examines the efficiency of multiple stakeholders’—local communities, FD,
researchers and politicians in conserving biodiversity at the Anamalai - Palni
Hills of the southern Western Ghats in Tamil Nadu. ‘Efficiency’ here is defined
as the amount of positive assistance stakeholders provide towards conserving
biodiversity. A systematic sampling strategy through self-administered
questionnaires was used to understand stakeholders’ perception of one another
and the challenges they faced. The results highlight the FD as having the
highest efficiency in conserving biodiversity followed by local communities,
researchers and lastly, political leaders. Stakeholder evaluation of one
another’s efficiency revealed a homogenous opinion towards local communities
and the FD. However, a considerable difference was observed towards researchers
whereby their efficiency was rated lower by local communities in comparison to
the FD. Dependency on forest resources that was curbed by the FD invariably
affected the attitude of local communities towards biodiversity conservation.
On the other hand, low pay rolling schemes, inadequate facilities and political
interference hinder the management capabilities of the FD. Increased research
and outreach activities would benefit Kodaikanal and Theni, provided a
collaborative effort to conserve biodiversity is pursued.
Keywords: Forest Department, Kodaikanal, local
community, political leaders, researchers, Theni, Valparai.
The publication of this article is supported by the
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF), a joint initiative of l’Agence
Française de Développement, Conservation International, the European
Commission, the Global Environment Facility, the Government of Japan, the
MacArthur Foundation and the World Bank.
For figures, table -- click here
Introduction
The conservation of
biodiversity involves the interaction and collaboration of numerous
stakeholders with varied interests and roles (Niraj et al. 2012). However, decision-making for managing
forested areas in biodiversity rich countries like India is often
uni-dimensional. Relevant
stakeholders like local communities who are directly affected by a conservation
initiative and researchers who try to understand conservation issues and devise
suitable strategies to resolve them are seldom considered or consulted
(Madhusudan et al. 2006). This
uni-dimensional approach, by omitting the perceptions of key stakeholders,
undermines the effectiveness that could otherwise be achieved by integrating
their perceptions, knowledge and support to inform management initiatives. Following are a few examples that
indicate the importance of integrated involvement in biodiversity
conservation. A huge local protest
against the set up of a tiger reserve in Masinagudi, Tamil Nadu, was a result
of lack of consultations with the people (Taghioff & Menon 2010) and the
fact that it was based on a strict preservationist-based protected area
system. Similarly, in the case of
sea cucumber harvest by local communities in the Coromandel Coast of India,
where this taxa was brought under the list of prohibited species in the Indian
Wildlife (Protection) Act without any consultations with the fisherman
communities (Niraj et al. 2012). In
both cases, there could have been a loss of positive attitudes among the locals
and thereby, a loss of benefits to wildlife conservation and subsequently for
the other key stakeholders. Local
community participation in management could decrease issues related to
protected area norms, its effect on local people and compliance (Andrade &
Rhodes 2012). There is a broad
scope for local community participation in India, as there have been numerous
informal initiatives headed directly by local communities. These have been termed as Community
Conserved Areas, which are natural (like forests, marine ecosystems, wetlands,
and grasslands), ecosystems with wildlife and biodiversity value, being
conserved by communities for cultural, religious, livelihood or political
purposes, using customary laws or other effective means (Pathak 2009).
Interactions between
stakeholders who influence biodiversity conservation, and perceptions of each
other’s capabilities to address relevant issues are often not discussed. Varying perceptions and mistrust towards
a stakeholder group from others, which the specific group may perhaps be
unaware of, could diminish their role in conservation-related activities. Brown’s (2002) discussion on integrated
conservation and development strategies emphasised a trade-off analysis which included
analyses of stakeholder interests, consensus building and discussing
information regarding stakeholder perceptions. Stakeholder groups must be
allowed to identify priorities before arriving at a consensus for working
towards conservation. The Bucco
Reef Marine Park, a tourist attraction in Tobago is a protected area with a
coral reef, sea grass lagoon, mangroves, beach and coastal land (Brown
2002). The ecological systems were
not well understood by the various stakeholders who used it’s resources,
thereby leading to a challenging and complicated management issue. Through interaction and discussions,
these stakeholders were integrated as a part of the decision-making for
conserving the island and a consensus was built through varying interests.
Through this study at limited
access forest fragments of the southern Western Ghats, we aim to explore and
inform the efficiency of key stakeholders- local communities, Forest Department
(FD) and researchers, towards biodiversity conservation and to understand
issues between and within each.
Methods
Study Area
The
study was conducted in three areas, Kodaikanal, Theni and Valparai situated in
the Anamalai-Palni Hills of the southern Western Ghats (Fig. 1).
The city of Kodaikanal, a
popular tourist destination located in the Dindigul District covers an area of
1039km2. A watershed for
the Vaigai and Manjalar rivers, it supports a diverse flora, which is found in
the dry deciduous forests and 13 unique shola forests (Bagyaraj &
Gurugnanam 2011). Land use includes
vegetable farming as well as coffee plantations, surrounded by densely
populated human settlements. Converting
forest areas into terraces for farming and, agricultural lands to
tourism-related infrastructure has resulted in extensive soil erosion, silting
of water sources and an increased risk of landslides (Bagyaraj & Gurugnanam
2011).
The district of Theni is
located in the southwest part of Tamil Nadu bordering the Kerala State (CARDS
2008). The elevation ranges from
100 to 1800 m ASL and the area forms a catchment for the rivers Suruli, Mullaperiyar,
Vaigai and Kottagudi (District Collectorate Theni 2009; Ayyanar et al. 2010;
Bhupathy et al. 2012). Vegetation
types vary between the plains and regions of high altitude, with the former
predominantly consisting of southern tropical forests and the latter, dry and
moist deciduous and evergreen forests (Ayyanar et al. 2010). Primarily an agriculture-based economy,
Theni is known for its cardamom, cotton, mango, coffee and tea plantations
(District Collectorate Theni 2009). Prone to unsustainable cultivation practices and encroachment, the
forest cover in the district is under considerable strain (Raju 2002).
The municipality of Valparai
located in the district of Coimbatore is contiguous with the Vazhachal Reserve
Forest of Kerala (Raman & Mudappa 2003). It harbours forest types ranging from
tropical dry scrub, dry deciduous, moist deciduous, semi-evergreen and
evergreen forests to montane shola grasslands (Daniels 2003; Muthukumar et al.
2006). Nearly 1000 acres of
degraded rainforest fragments are distributed across coffee, tea and cardamom
estates, surrounded by four protected areas, viz., Indira Gandhi Wildlife
Sanctuary, Chinnar Wildlife Sanctuary, Eravikulam National Park and
Parambikulam Wildlife Sanctuary (Raman & Mudappa 2003). Over the past years, increasing human
population, forest fragmentation, human-wildlife conflict and a lack of
dialogue between landowners and the FD have affected the ecological balance of
Valparai (Raman & Mudappa 2003).
Interview survey
Questionnaire surveys were
conducted from May to July 2010 with individuals from the local community, FD
officials and conservation researchers.
Surveys were undertaken with
local communities close to, or within reach of the 25 Reserve Forests and
private forest fragments (Fig. 1; Appendix 1). Systematic sampling strategy (Newing
2010) was used to select 20 households. At Kumbhakarai and Paliangudi only 10 households were selected due to time
constraints. Within each household, the first individual above the age of 18,
irrespective of gender, who consented, was interviewed. In total, 480 questionnaires were
administered.
Questionnaires were
administered with 21 FD officials (three at Kodaikanal, five at Theni and 13 at
Valparai) and 11 conservation researchers (two at Kodaikanal, two at Theni and
seven at Valparai), selected through a respondent-driven sampling strategy
(Newing 2010).
The questionnaire,
administered face to face with respondents, was standardized for the native
languages (Tamil and Malayalam) and English. Respondents were asked to rate
stakeholders other than themselves for conserving biodiversity on a scale of 0
(zero efficiency) to 5 (maximum positive efficiency). Efficiency in biodiversity conservation
was explained as the amount of positive assistance the stakeholders provided
towards conserving biodiversity. Though questionnaires were not undertaken with political leaders, they
were included as a stakeholder in biodiversity conservation to gain exploratory
insight of their role from the other key stakeholders. Since interviewed stakeholders also
rated political leaders, it allowed for this insight. Respondents were also asked to state
issues if any, faced from other stakeholders or those within their community in
relation to biodiversity conservation. Respondent characteristics - age, gender, education and monthly income
were recorded.
Statistical analysis was
undertaken using SPSS 11.5 for Windows. Means of overall stakeholder efficiency in accordance with study area and
stakeholder type were calculated. Non-parametric tests, Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U-test were
undertaken to find if any differences in efficiency occurred between the
different stakeholders and amongst stakeholders towards one another. Whether the ratings of stakeholder
efficiencies differed with respect to the respondent characteristics was also
analysed. For the open-ended
question of stakeholder issues, the responses were coded appropriately and summarised.
Results
Stakeholder Ratings
The FD was rated as the
stakeholder with the highest efficiency in biodiversity conservation followed
by local communities, conservation researchers and politicians (Fig. 2). Statistically significant differences were
found towards the efficiency of all the four stakeholders - FD (Kruskal-Wallis
test, χ2=23.8, df=2, P<0.001), researchers
(Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2=196.3, df=2, P<0.0001),
political leaders (χ2=10.6, df=2, P<0.01) and local
communities (Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2=6.4, df=2, P=0.04)
in the three areas. The average
efficiency ratings of the four stakeholders were comparatively higher in
Valparai than at Kodaikanal and Theni (Fig. 2). There was also a higher rating
for researchers than locals at Valparai.
Local communities and FD were
rated similarly by the other stakeholders (Fig. 3). Researcher (Mann-Whitney U-test, 3062.5,
df=1, P=0.001) and political efficiency (Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2=77.8,
df= 2, P<0.001) was however rated differently by the other
stakeholders. Researchers were rated lower by local communities in comparison
to the FD (Fig. 3). Similarly the
FD rated politicians much lower than local communities and researchers (Fig.
3).
Research efficiency was found
to vary significantly among the different age (Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2=12.4,
df=3, P<0.001) and education groups that rated them (Kruskal-Wallis
test, χ2=18.9, df=3, P<0.001). The age group above 50 years rated
researcher efficiency higher (2.2±0.3) than the other younger groups
(18–30= 1.5±0.2, 31–40=1.4±0.1 & 41–50=1.4±0.2). Researcher efficiency was also found to
increase with an increase in educational qualification (none=1.0±0.2,
1-8=1.4±0.1 & 9-12=2.0±0.2) except at the graduate level among whom it
reduced (1.1±0.3).
Political efficiency was
found to vary significantly among the different salary (Kruskal-Wallis test,
χ2=68.3, df= 3, P<0.001) and education groups
(Kruskal-Wallis test, χ2=22.6, df=3, P<0.001). Lower
income groups earning between ` 0–5000 (no income=0.3±0.2,
1–2500=0.1±0.03, 2501–5000=0.1±0.03) rated political efficiency
lower than those that earned above ` 5000 (0.7±0.2). With an increasing level
of education, the political efficiency rating also increased (none=0.1±0.04,
1–8=0.2±0.04, 9–12=0.1±0.04, above 12=0.6±0.2).
Issues amongst stakeholders
Livelihood issues attributed
to each stakeholder’s characteristic were expressed recurrently through the
interviews. There was a pronounced
perception among local communities that the FD was very strict, did not
recognize their needs and dependency on firewood, and cared more for wildlife
than the lives of the local people. Some FD officials were also known to derive bribes from local
communities when they caught them collecting forest resources. Some locals
feared the FD and claimed that in spite of extending help, the FD never
reciprocated. A local settlement
(Arsaredi, Meghamalai Wildlife Division) at Theni faced a situation of
impending relocation and implored for assistance. They claimed to be brought into the
landscape by the FD to setup silk cotton plantations in replacement of the
native vegetation at the Reserve Forests. After the plantation initiative ceased and the FD’s activities receded,
they continued to live and farm around the area. However, the FD now wanted them to move
away from the area. The local FD officials claimed that the local community’s
political connections aided the community from imminent FD action of their
removal from the area.
Reduced effectiveness of the
FD was attributed to a smaller work force and low salaries. This was perceived to cut back
monitoring and implementation of conservation plans. Some FD officials lower in the hierarchy
were dissatisfied over the inadequate facilities and equipment at their
disposal for effectively conserving biodiversity.
The FD, researchers and local
communities stressed the interference of politicians and their role in
conservation-based disputes of encroachments in forest areas as well as illegal
felling and sale of timber. Civil
servants, political leaders, bureaucrats and lower level administrative workers
were perceived to be poorly informed with regard to biodiversity conservation
and adequate efforts should be taken to promote awareness among them.
Discussion
Forest Department
The FD, accredited with the
management of forested areas was rated with the highest efficiency in
biodiversity conservation in the study areas. However, the results also suggest that
the limited manpower of the Tamil Nadu FD reduced effective monitoring in areas
such as Valparai (Kumara et al. 2004; Raman & Mudappa 2003).
Accepting bribes from locals
could be arising from unsatisfactory salaries and facilities. This condition has also created a
business-as-usual attitude, where both stakeholders may find the existing
system too convenient to change. Moreover, the organizational structure of the FD is characterised by
hierarchy and a top-down information flow (Kumar & Kant 2005), a reason why
the FD officials expect the community members to function and be treated the
same. Tenure insecurity among the
FD and local communities is another reason for the constant sense of antagonism
(Sekhar 2004) between both the stakeholders. Based on these issues, improved training
for the forest guards and watchers as well as an inbuilt system that allows for
greater interaction with the locals, and other stakeholders would help. Improving the working conditions for the
FD personnel, providing incentives and working towards ensuring a better
relationship with local communities would increase their efficiency further.
Local Communities
Local community efficiency in
conserving biodiversity has been rated second to the FD at all the areas except
at Valparai, where researchers were rated higher. However, FD officials rated local
communities lower than researchers in the role they played in biodiversity
conservation. This could have emerged out of the prevalent concern over local
dependence on natural resources and FD officials being involved in a higher
level of interaction with locals than researchers.
The local communities in turn
perceived that the managing authorities were inconsiderate of their need of
forest-based resources. Currently,
as even protected areas are perceived to support the livelihoods of local
communities associated with it (McNeely 1993), limited access forests like
those that were part of this study, may need to do so. Apart from the new category of Community
and Conservation Reserves where multi-stakeholder interests are to be
considered, initiatives such as Eco-development Committees and Village Forest
Committees related to protected areas have been successful in some states of
the country. For the
eco-development committees at Periyar Tiger Reserve in Kerala, participation
and collaboration has empowered local communities, improved relations between
the protected area and local communities and has contributed in alleviating
poverty (Periyar Tiger Reserve 2012).
The provision of free,
alternative resources would also be readily accepted by local communities. The local community members have
developed a negative attitude towards the FD, which could have risen from
conflicts based on resource extraction, rude behaviour or harassment by FD
officials (Macura et al. 2011). On
account of this, local communities also expressed a sense of fear towards the
FD. For many, the lack of legal
land rights contributes to the fear and negative attitude. Additionally, inadequate or
unsatisfactory fulfilment of assurances by the FD also reduces local
communities’ confidence in them (Sekhar 2004). Keeping in mind that local communities
are the stakeholders with the largest numbers and generally reside closer to
forested areas, building a positive relationship with them would be critical
for biodiversity conservation.
Researchers
The lack of available literature
on conservation issues in Kodaikanal and Theni, and very low researcher
efficiency in these areas suggests a lack of conservation-based research. These two sites also lacked permanent
field stations dealing with conservation research in contrast to Valparai. There was a prominent difference in the
manner in which researchers’ efficiency in biodiversity conservation was
perceived by FD officials and local communities (Fig 3). Local communities rated their efficiency
lower than FD officials, which suggests a lack of interaction with local
communities, local perceptions that research may be unimportant, or absence of
initiatives that involved on-ground conservation and sharing of knowledge. Locally situated field stations could
also contribute to building better relationships with people. However, the research undertaken needs
to be communicated, so as to inform local communities and, in a sense, give
back to the community. Therefore,
setting up of permanent field stations to initiate active research and outreach
activities could benefit biodiversity conservation especially at Kodaikanal and
Theni. Outreach initiatives need to
be aimed at age groups below 50 years and college graduates to bring about greater
exposure for biodiversity conservation and research initiatives.
Political leaders
Politicians have been rated
with the lowest efficiency in biodiversity conservation, as they are known to
intervene with “development” initiatives that threaten biodiversity
conservation. An example of political
intervention concerning a hotel construction in Kodaikanal has been discussed
by Viraraghavan (2011) wherein the construction of seven-floors against the
two-floor norm in commercial-use land as per the Kodaikanal Master Plan was
aided by the State Government. The
Kodaikanal Municipality was then found to have 1503 buildings constructed
without any sanctions, of which 233 had zoning restriction violations
(Viraraghavan 2011). In a
rapidly growing country like India,
the needs and interests of people may often be put ahead of biodiversity
conservation. Therefore, conserving
biodiversity may not be necessary for political leaders to gain mass support,
however this could be achieved by catering to the resource needs of local
communities. The interdependence of
these two stakeholders though weak at times or reduced to a few meetings each
five-year term during the elections, could be an important link for discussing
and resolving conservation issues. Interactions with political leaders may need
to be pursued by other stakeholders to devise strategies that integrate the
needs of local communities and biodiversity conservation.
Conclusion
Our study has thrown light on
the differing stakeholder views towards biodiversity conservation in a
‘Biodiversity Hotspot’ like the Western Ghats. It highlights the importance of
integrating multiple stakeholders to determine ways and to begin resolving
issues related to biodiversity conservation. Differing perceptions and
consequent interests among stakeholders is a challenge which needs to be
addressed for effective biodiversity conservation. Greater interaction between each
stakeholder may improve perceptions towards each other. While perceptions cannot be induced, a
basis for building positive relationships can be met through interaction,
collaboration and consultations with key stakeholders, as an initial step
towards improved collaborative biodiversity conservation.
References
Andrade, G.S.M. & J.R.
Rhodes (2012).Protected Areas and Local Communities: an Inevitable Partnership toward
Successful Conservation Strategies? Ecology and Society 17(4): 14; http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05216-170414
Ayyanar, M., K.
Sankarasivaraman, S. Ignacimuthu & T. Sekar (2010). Plant species with ethno
botanical importance other than medicinal in Theni district of Tamil Nadu,
southern India. Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences 1(4):
765–771.
Bagyaraj, M. & B.
Gurugnanam (2011). Significance of Morphometry Studies, Soil Characteristics,
Erosion Phenomena and Landform Processes Using Remote Sensing and GIS for
Kodaikanal Hills, A Global Biodiversity Hotpot in Western Ghats, Dindigul
District, Tamil Nadu, South India. Research Journal of Environmental and
Earth Sciences 3(3): 221–233.
Bhupathy, S., G. Srinivas, N. Sathishkumar, M. Murugesan, S. Babu, R.
Suganthasakthivel & P. Sivakumar (2012). Diversity
and conservation of selected biota of the Megamalai landscape, Western Ghats,
India. Current Science 102(4): 590–595.
Brown, K. (2002). Innovations for conservation and
development. The Geographical Journal 168: 6–17; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-4959.00034
CARDS (Centre for
Agricultural and Rural Developmental Studies) (2008). National Agricultural
Development Programme; District Agricultural Plan - Theni District.
<http://agritech.tnau.ac.in/govt_schemes_services/pdf/govt_schemes_nadp_dap_Theni.pdf>.
Online version dated 24 May 2012.
Daniels, R.J.R. (2003). Impact of tea cultivation on
anurans in the Western Ghats. Current Science 85(10): 1415–1422.
District Collectorate Theni
(2009). Tourist
Attractions in Theni District.
<
http://www.theni.tn.nic.in/Tourism.asp>. Online
version dated 24 May 2012.
Kumara, H.N., M.A. Kumar,
A.K. Sharma, H.S. Sushma & M. Singh (2004). Diversity and management of wild
mammals in tea gardens in the rainforest regions of the Western Ghats, India: A
case study from a tea estate in the Anaimalai Hills. Current Science 87:
1282–1287.
Kumar, S. & S. Kant
(2005).Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters’ perceptions
regarding community-based forest management in India. Forest Policy and
Economics 7: 651–669; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.02.001
Macura, B., F.
Zorondo-Rodriguez, M. Grau-Satorras, K. Demps, M. Laval, C. Garcia & V.
Reyes-Garcia (2011). Local community attitudes towards forests outside protected areas
in India. Impact of legal awareness, trust and participation. Ecology and
Society 16(3): 10; http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04242-160310
Madhusudan, M.D., K. Shanker,
A. Kumar, C. Mishra, A. Sinha, R. Arthur, A. Datta, M. Rangarajan, R. Chellam,
G. Shahabuddin, R. Sankaran, R., M. Singh, U. Ramakrishnan & P.D. Rajan
(2006).Science in the wilderness: the predicament of scientific research in India’s
wildlife reserves. Current Science 91: 1015–1019.
McNeely, J.A. (1993). Economic incentives for
conserving biodiversity: Lessons for Africa. Ambio 22(2/3):
144–150.
Muthukumar, S., N. Ayyappan,
N. Parthasarthy, D. Mudappa, T.R.S. Raman, M.A. Selwyn & L.A. Pragasan (2006).Plant
community structure in tropical rainforest fragments of the Western Ghats,
India. Biotropica 38(2): 143–160; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7429.2006.00118.x
Newing, H., (2010). Conducting Research in
Conservation: Social Science Methods and Practice. Routledge, London.
Niraj, S.K., P.R. Krausman
& V. Dayal (2012). A stakeholder perspective into wildlife policy in India. The
Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1): 10–18; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.263
Pathak, N. (2009). Community conserved areas in
India an overview. In: Pathak, N. (ed.). Community Conserved Areas in India
A Directory. Kalpavriksh, Pune, 500pp.
Periyar Tiger Reserve (2012). India Eco Development
Project.http://periyartigerreserve.org/Periyar/html/html/iedp_positiveimpact.htm Online
version dated 21 March 2013.
Raju, K. (2002). Encroachments
a threat to Megamalai hills sanctuary plan. The Hindu. <http://hindu.com/2002/12/16/stories/2002121604430500.htm>.
Online version dated 24 May 2012.
Raman, T.R.S. & D.
Mudappa (2003). Bridging the gap: Sharing responsibility for ecological
restoration and wildlife conservation on private lands in the Western Ghats. Social
Change 33(2&3): 129–141; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004908570303300309
Sekhar, U. (2004). Local Versus Expert
Knowledge in Forest Management in a Semi-Arid part of India. Land
Degradation & Development 15: 133–142; http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ldr.593
Taghioff, D. & A. Menon
(2010). Can
a Tiger Change Its Stripes? The Politics of Conservation as Translated in
Mudumalai. Economic & Political Weekly 45(28): 69–76.
Viraraghavan, M.S., (2011). Hill Stations in the
Western Ghats, Kodaikanal - A Case Study, Ed. W.G.E.E. Panel. Ministry of
Environment and Forestry, Government of India, New Delhi.