Assessing the role of forest resources in improving rural livelihoods in West Bengal of India

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2024.100141

Abstract

Abstract:

Forest resources play a vital role in supporting the livelihoods of rural communities residing in forest-rich areas. In India, a forest-rich country, a significant proportion of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) is consumed locally, supporting numerous rural communities relying on forests for essential resources, such as firewood, timber, and NTFPs. This study focuses on two forest-dominant districts in West Bengal of India, namely, Jhargram District and Paschim Medinipur District. Furthermore, this study aims to enhance the understanding of forest-dependent communities by comparing the standard of living among different village classes. Thus, we categorized villages into three classes based on the distance from home to forests, including inner villages, fringe villages, and outer villages. Through focus group discussions and household surveys, we explored the sources of local economy, income sources of household, and reasons for economic diversification in different village classes. The study findings confirm that substantial variations existed in the income sources and the standard of living in these villages. Forest income varied dramatically among the three village classes, with inner villages having greater forest income than fringe villages and outer villages. Meanwhile, households in outer villages depended on forests and engaged in diverse economic activities for their livelihoods. Compared with inner and fringe villages, households in outer villages derived a significant portion of their income from livestock. This discrepancy can be attributed to challenges, such as inadequate transportation, communication, and underdeveloped market chains in inner villages. Moreover, these findings emphasize the need to develop sustainable forest management practices, create alternative income-generation opportunities, and improve infrastructure and market access in inner villages, as well as promote economic diversification in outer villages. Through targeted policy measures, these forest-rich regions can achieve improved livelihoods, enhanced standard of living, and increased resilience for their communities.

Key words: Non-timber forest products (NTFPs), Forest resources, Standard of living index, Livelihood dependency index, Income sources, India

Soumen BISUI, Pravat Kumar SHIT. Assessing the role of forest resources in improving rural livelihoods in West Bengal of India[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2024, 5(2): 100141.

Figures/Tables 8

Table 1

Fig. 1.

Table 2

Fig. 2.

Table 3

Fig. 3.

Table 4

Fig. 4.

References 60

[1]	Adhikary P.P., Shit P.K., Bhunia G.S., 2021. NTFPs for socioeconomic security of rural households along the forest ecotone of Paschim Medinipur forest division, India. Forest Resources Resilience and Conflicts. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822931-6.00018-6.
[2]	Babulo B., Muys B., Nega F., 2009. The economic contribution of forest resource use to rural livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. For. Policy Econ. 11(2), 109-117.
[3]	Basar S.M.A., Das P., 2018. Status of food security in West Bengal: A study based on NSSO unit level data. International Journal of Inclusive Development. 4(1), 1-7.
[4]	Belcher B.M., 2005. Forest product markets, forests and poverty reduction. International Forestry Review. 7(2), 82-89.
[5]	Belcher B., Achdiawan R., Dewi S., 2015. Forest-based livelihoods strategies conditioned by market remoteness and forest proximity in Jharkhand, India. World Dev. 66, 269-279.
[6]	Bisui S., Roy S., Sengupta D., et al., 2021a. Conversion of land use land cover and its impact on ecosystem services in a tropical forest. In: ShitP.K., PourghasemiH.R., DasP., et al., (eds.). Spatial Modeling in Forest Resources Management. Environmental Science and Engineering. Cham: Springer.
[7]	Bisui S., Roy S., Sengupta D., et al., 2021b. Assessment of ecosystem services values in response to land use/land cover change in tropical forest. Forest Resources Resilience and Conflicts. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-822931-6.00031-9.
[8]	Bisui S., Roy S., Bera B., et al., 2022. Economic and ecological realization of Joint Forest Management (JFM) for sustainable rural livelihood: A case study. Trop. Ecol. 64, 296-306.
[9]	Bisui S., Shit P.K., 2023. Assessing the dependence of livelihoods in rural communities on tropical forests: Insights from the Midnapore Forest Division in West Bengal, India. Socio Ecol. Pract. Res. 5, 423-437.
[10]	Cavendish W., 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Dev. 28(11), 1979-2003.
[11]	Champion H.G., Seth S.K., 1968. A Revised Survey of the Forest Types of India. [2023-12-30]. https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&id=hIjwAAAAMAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=Champion,+H.G.,+Seth,+S.K.,+1968.+A+Revised+Survey+of+the+Forest+Types+of+India.+XX:+Manag.+Publ.&ots=lEtV3Ho_y2&sig=VLMeVgOQvw3dNFuU-aAHwf5EcOA&redir_esc= y#v=onepage&q&f=false.
[12]	Chou T.C., 2019. Design for empowerment:Bolstering knowledge and skills to aid sustainable awareness and actions. PhD Dissertation. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
[13]	Cocks M., López C., Dold T., 2011. Cultural importance of non-timber forest products: Opportunities they pose for bio-cultural diversity in dynamic societies. [2023-12-30]. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-17983-9_5.
[14]	Das G.K., Das R., 2016. Mapping of the forest cover based on multi-criteria analysis: A case study on Jhargram sector in Paschim Medinipur District. Int. J. Sci. Res. 5(8), 492-499.
[15]	Dash M., Behera B., 2016. Determinants of household collection of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) and alternative livelihood activities in Similipal Tiger Reserve, India. For. Policy Econ. 73, 215-228.
[16]	Delgado T.S., McCall M.K., López-Binqüist C., 2016. Recognized but not supported: Assessing the incorporation of non-timber forest products into Mexican forest policy. For. Policy Econ. 71, 36-42.
[17]	de Sousa F.F., Vieira-da-Silva C., Barros F.B., 2018. The (in)visible market of miriti (Mauritia flexuosa L.f.) fruits, the “winter acai”, in Amazonian riverine communities of Abaetetuba, Northern Brazil. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 14, e00393, doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00393.
[18]	Edwards P., Sharma‐Wallace L., Barnard T., et al., 2019. Sustainable livelihoods approaches to inform government‐local partnerships and decision‐making in vulnerable environments. New Zealand Geographer. 75(2), 63-73. doi: 10.1111/nzg.12214
[19]	Fardusi M.J., Rahman M.H., Roy B., 2011. Improving livelihood status through collection and management of forest resources: An experience from Sylhet Forest Division, Bangladesh. Int. J. For. Usufructs Manag. 12(2), 59-76.
[20]	Fardusi M.J., Chianucci F., Barbati A., 2017. Concept to practice of geospatial-information tools to assist forest management and planning under precision forestry framework: A review. Ann. Silvic. Res. 41(1), 3-14.
[21]	Garekae H., Thakadu O.T., Lepetu J., 2017. Socio-economic factors influencing household forest dependency in Chobe enclave, Botswana. Ecol. Processes. 6(1), 1-10.
[22]	IIPS(International Institute for Population Sciences), ORC Macro, 2000. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-2), 1998-99: India. [2023-12-30]. https://www.dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FRIND2/FRIND2.pdf.
[23]	Jagger P., Luckert M.M.K., Duchelle A.E., et al., 2014. Tenure and forest income: Observations from a global study on forests and poverty. World Dev. 64, 43-55.
[24]	Jana S.K., Ahmed M.U., Heubach K., 2017. Dependency of rural households on non-timber forest products (NTFPs): A study in dryland areas of West Bengal, India. Int. J. Sustain. Econom. Manag. 6(2), 37-50.
[25]	Jana S.K., Payra T., Manna S.S., et al., 2019. Forest dependency and rural livelihood—a study in Paschim Medinipur District, West Bengal. Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research. 8(3), 164-178.
[26]	Kamanga P., Vedeld P., Sjaastad E., 2009. Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecol. Econ. 68(3), 613-624.
[27]	Kar S.P., Jacobson M.G., 2012. NTFP income contribution to household economy and related socio-economic factors: Lessons from Bangladesh. For. Policy Econ. 14(1), 136-142.
[28]	Langat D.K., Maranga E.K., Aboud A.A., et al., 2016. Role of forest resources to local livelihoods: The case of East Mau forest ecosystem, Kenya. Int. J. For. Res. 2016, 4537354, doi: 10.1155/2016/4537354.
[29]	Lax J., Köthke M., 2017. Livelihood strategies and forest product utilisation of rural households in Nepal. Small-scale For. 16(4), 505-520.
[30]	Mahapatra A.K., Shackleton C.M., 2011. Has deregulation of non-timber forest product controls and marketing in Orissa state (India) affected local patterns of use and marketing. For. Policy Econ. 13(8), 622-629.
[31]	Mahonya S., Shackleton C.M., Schreckenberg K., 2019. Non-timber forest product use and market chains along a deforestation gradient in southwest Malawi. Front. For. Glob. Change. 2, doi: 10.3389/ffgc.2019.00071.
[32]	Makhubele L., Chirwa P.W., Araia M.G., 2022. The influence of forest proximity to harvesting and use of provisioning ecosystem services from tree species in traditional agroforestry landscapes. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 29(8), 812-826.
[33]	Matias D.M.S., Tambo J.A., Stellmacher T., et al., 2018. Commercializing traditional non-timber forest products: An integrated value chain analysis of honey from giant honey bees in Palawan, Philippines. For. Policy Econ. 97, 223-231.
[34]	Mendako R.K., Tian G., Ullah S., et al., 2022. Assessing the economic contribution of forest use to rural livelihoods in the Rubi-Tele Hunting Domain, DR Congo. Forests. 13(1), 130, doi: 10.3390/f13010130.
[35]	Mukherjee P., Ray B., Bhattacharya R.N., 2017. Status differences in collective action and forest benefits: Evidence from joint forest management in India. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 19(5), 1831-1854.
[36]	Mukul S.A., Uddin M.B., Rashid A.Z.M., et al., 2010. Integrating livelihoods and conservation in protected areas: Understanding the role and stakeholder views on prospects for non-timber forest products, a Bangladesh case study. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 17(2), 180-188.
[37]	Mukul S.A., Rashid A.M., Uddin M.B., et al., 2016. Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households’ resilience capacity in and around protected area: A Bangladesh study. J. Environ. Plann. Manag. 59(4), 628-642.
[38]	Mushi H., Yanda P.Z., Kleyer M., 2020. Socioeconomic factors determining extraction of non-timber forest products on the slopes of Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Hum. Ecol. 48, 695-707.
[39]	Nambiar E.K.S., 2021. Strengthening Vietnam’s forestry sectors and rural development: Higher productivity, value, and access to fairer markets are needed to support small forest growers. Trees, Forests and People. 3, 100052, doi: 10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100052.
[40]	Ndumbe L.N., Ingram V., Tchamba M., et al., 2019. From trees to money: The contribution of Njansang (Ricinodendron heudelotii) products to value chain stakeholders’ financial assets in the South West Region of Cameroon. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods. 28(1), 52-67.
[41]	Nerfa L., Rhemtulla J.M., Zerriffi H., 2020. Forest dependence is more than forest income: Development of a new index of forest product collection and livelihood resources. World Dev. 125, 104689, doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104689.
[42]	Ofoegbu C., Chirwa P.W., Francis J., et al., 2017. Socio-economic factors influencing household dependence on forests and its implication for forest-based climate change interventions. South. For. J. For. Sci. 79(2), 109-116.
[43]	Pradhan P., Singh M., 2019. Role of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in sustaining forest-based livelihoods: A case study of Ribdi village of West Sikkim, India. [2023-06-01]. https://www.cabidigitallibrary.org/doi/full/10.5555/20193414773.
[44]	Rahut D.B., Behera B., Ali A., 2016. Do forest resources help increase rural household income and alleviate rural poverty? Empirical evidence from Bhutan. For. Trees Livelihoods. 25(3), 187-198.
[45]	Sahoo K.P., Roy A., Mandal M.H., et al., 2022. Appraisal of coexistence and interdependence of forest and tribes in Jhargram District of West Bengal, India using SWOT-AHP analysis. GeoJournal. 88, 1493-1513.
[46]	Saxena A., Guneralp B., Bailis R., et al., 2016. Evaluating the resilience of forest dependent communities in Central India by combining the sustainable livelihoods framework and the cross scale resilience analysis. Current Science. 110(7), 1195-1207.
[47]	Schmerbeck J., Kohli A., Seeland K., 2015. Ecosystem services and forest fires in India—Context and policy implications from a case study in Andhra Pradesh. For. Policy Econ. 50, 337-346.
[48]	Sharma D., Tiwari B.K., Chaturvedi S.S., et al., 2015. Status, utilization and economic valuation of non-timber forest products of Arunachal Pradesh, India. J. For. Environ. Sci. 31(1), 24-37.
[49]	Shit P.K., Pati C.K., 2012. Non-timber forest products for livelihood security of tribal communities: A case study in Paschim Medinipur district, West Bengal. J. Hum. Ecol. 40(2), 149-156.
[50]	Shit P.K., Pourghasemi H.R., Das P., et al., 2020. Spatial Modeling in Forest Resources Management. Switzerland: Springer.
[51]	Shit P.K., Pourghasemi H.R., Adhikary P.P., et al., 2021. Forest Resources Resilience and Conflicts. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
[52]	Singh R., Gehlot A., Akram S.V., et al., 2022. Forest 4.0: Digitalization of forest using the Internet of Things (IoT). J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 34(8), 5587-5601.
[53]	Sukhdev P., 2009. Costing the Earth. Nature. 462, 277, doi: 10.1038/462277a.
[54]	Suleiman M.S., Wasonga V.O., Mbau J.S., et al., 2017. Non-timber forest products and their contribution to households’ income around Falgore Game Reserve in Kano, Nigeria. Ecol. Processes. 6(1), 1-14.
[55]	Thorbecke E., Charumilind C., 2002. Economic inequality and its socioeconomic impact. World Dev. 30(9), 1477-1495.
[56]	Vaughan A., 2020. World braces for economic impact. New Sci. 245(3272), 10, doi: 10.1016/S0262-4079(20)30477-2. pmid: 32287811
[57]	Vedeld P., Angelsen A., Bojö J., et al., 2007. Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. For. Policy Econ. 9(7), 869-879.
[58]	Walle Y., Nayak D., 2022. Analyzing households’ dependency on non-timber forest products, poverty alleviation potential, and socioeconomic drivers: Evidence from Metema and Quara districts in the dry Forests of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. J. Sustain. For. 41(8), 678-705.
[59]	Wunder S., Börner J., Shively G., et al., 2014. Safety nets, gap filling and forests: A global-comparative perspective. World Dev. 64, 29-42. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.005
[60]	Zikargae M.H., Woldearegay A.G., Skjerdal T., 2022. Empowering rural society through non-formal environmental education: An empirical study of environment and forest development community projects in Ethiopia. Heliyon. 8(3), e09127, doi: 10.1016/j. heliyon.2022.e09127.

Variable		Percentage of households (%)			P-value
Variable		Inner villages	Fringe villages	Outer villages	P-value
Education	Less educated	37.5	40.0	7.5	0.000
	Moderately educated	61.7	54.2	71.7
	Highly educated	0.8	5.8	20.8
Gender	Male	67.5	60.0	56.7	0.212
Gender	Female	32.5	40.0	43.3	0.212
Cast	General	4.2	7.5	5.0	0.408
	Scheduled cast	5.0	5.8	6.7
	Scheduled tribe	40.0	41.7	36.7
	Other	50.8	45.0	51.7
Household size	Small	3.3	3.3	2.5	0.151
	Medium	67.5	68.3	58.3
	Large	29.2	28.3	39.2
Standard of living	Low	19.2	2.5	0.0	0.000
	Medium	75.0	97.5	80.8
	High	5.8	0.0	19.2

Income source	Income in inner villages (INR)			Income in fringe villages (INR)			Income in outer villages (INR)
Income source	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Minimum	Maximum	Mean
Timber	5000.0	24,000.0	13,800.0	4000.0	15,000.0	8441.7	0.0	8000.0	2658.3
Fuelwood	5400.0	48,600.0	26,748.0	5400.0	32,400.0	16,565.0	1000.0	20,000.0	9458.3
Medicine plant	300.0	1500.0	1028.3	0.0	800.0	298.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
Sal leaves	8734.6	2000.0	15,300.0	2000.0	14,400.0	5819.2	0.0	4000.0	372.5
Sal seed	150.0	3000.0	1270.8	0.0	3000.0	680.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Honey	0.0	700.0	245.0	0.0	500.0	204.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
Kendu	800.0	6000.0	3066.7	0.0	2000.0	283.3	0.0	0.0	0.0
Mahua	0.0	1100.0	629.3	0.0	500.0	171.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
Mahua seed	0.0	2100.0	630.8	0.0	500.0	267.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
Forest income	22,900.0	87,450.0	56,153.5	17,450.0	54,200.0	32,722.5	2400.0	27,000.0	12,492.5
Agriculture income	5000.0	22,000.0	13,193.8	5000.0	50,000.0	17,041.7	12,000.0	45,000.0	22,933.3
Total income	38,900.0	100,850.0	70,914.8	28,800.0	104,400.0	53,828.3	33,400.0	90,000.0	53,100.8

Statistic	Sum of squares	Degree of freedom	Mean square	F
Forest income	114,581,903,280.0	2	57,290,951,640.0	618.1
Agriculture income	5,775,107,291.6	2	2,887,553,645.8	48.2
Livestock income	133,811,669,791.6	2	66,905,834,895.8	162.6
SLI	3782.1	2	1891.0	49.0