Impact of forest governance and enforcement on deforestation and forest degradation at the district level: A study in West Bengal State, India

doi:10.1016/j.regsus.2023.11.002

Abstract

Abstract:

According to the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the world loses 1.0×10⁶ hm² forest land through deforestation annually. About 1.6×10⁶ people who depend on forests for livelihood are negatively affected by deforestation and forest degradation. The paper attempts to study the impact of forest governance, enforcement and socio-economic factors on deforestation and forest degradation at the local level in West Bengal State, India. The study was based on questionnaire survey data during 2020-2021 collected from three western districts (Purulia, Bankura, and Paschim Medinipur) where deforestation and poverty rates are higher than other districts in West Bengal State. The total number of selected villages was 29, and the total sample households were 693. A stratified random sampling technique was used to collect data, and a questionnaire was followed. Forest governance and enforcement indices were constructed using United Nation Development Programme (UNDP) methodology and a step-wise logistic regression model was used to identify the factors affecting deforestation and forest degradation. The result of this study showed that four factors (illegal logging, weak forest administration, encroachment, and poverty) are identified for the causes of deforestation and forest degradation. It is observed that six indices of forest governance (rule of law, transparency, accountability, participation, inclusiveness and equitability, and efficiency and effectiveness) are relatively high in Purulia District. Moreover, this study shows that Purulia and Bankura districts follow medium forest governance, while Paschim Medinipur District has poor forest governance. The enforcement index is found to be highest in Purulia District (0.717) and lowest for Paschim Medinipur District (0.257). Finally, weak forest governance, poor socio-economic conditions of the households, and weak enforcement lead to the deforestation and forest degradation in the study area. Therefore, governments should strengthen law enforcement and encourage sustainable forest certification schemes to combat illegal logging.

Key words: Deforestation, Forest degradation, Forest governance index, Enforcement index, Illegal logging, Logistic regression model, India

Aishwarya BASU, Jyotish Prakash BASU. Impact of forest governance and enforcement on deforestation and forest degradation at the district level: A study in West Bengal State, India[J]. Regional Sustainability, 2023, 4(4): 441-452.

Figures/Tables 14

Table 1

Fig. 1.

Table 2

Table 3

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Table S1

Description of main index of forest governance index."

Main index	Description		Response of the households in a three-point Likert scale
Rule of law	Are there any formal rules regulating for forest use?		Yes, clear rules=1; yes, but vague=2; and no=3.
	Is there any informal rule for the use of forest products?		Yes, but unclear=1; yes, clear rules=2; no=3; and don’t know=4.
	Do you know the timber brokers helping with deforestation due to leakage of forest laws?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Is there any weak forest administration?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Is there political intervention for illegal encroachment and illegal logging?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Is there any strong administration which helps to save reserve forest?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
Transparency	Do you know permission to be taken from the forest protection committees beyond the specified level of forest product use?		Yes, need to inform the authorities=1; yes, written permission needed=2; no=3; and don’t know=4.
	Is there any money involvement for getting permission for the extra collection of forest products?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Do you know any decisions taken from the meeting of the executive committee?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Do you know the agenda of meeting placed before the general body meeting?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
Accountability	Are you regularly present in the general body meeting?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Do you have any experience of tackling conflict if any?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
	Do you know the community members obey government rules?		Yes by everyone=1; yes by some=2; and no=3.
Participation	Planning index	Forest boundary demarcation	Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
		Identifying forest users
		Participatory forest resource assessment
		Forest management committee election
		Encouraging others to participate
		Preparing forest management plan
		Developing forest management bye-laws
		Approval of forest management agreement
	Implementation index	Reforestation of degraded forest areas	Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
		Planting of fruit bearing trees such as mahua and mango
		Planting trees and management
		Nursery establishment
		Beekeeping
		Forest fire fighting
		Attending meetings
		Participation in knowledge and skill developing training
	Monitoring index	Follow up forest managements bye-laws	Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
		Helps forest patrolling
		Preventing illegal timber logging
		Supervise forest management plan implementation
		Forest boundary maintenance
Inclusiveness and equitability	Do you know female member forms a self-help group?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.
Efficiency and effectiveness	Do you know that there has been an increase in the availability of wood and non-timber forest products in last 5 years?		Increased=1; no change=2; and decline=3.
Efficiency and effectiveness	Do you know the dependency of forest resources go down due to the successful implementation of poverty eradication programmes by the government?		Yes=1; no=2; and don’t know=3.

Table S1

Table S2

Forest governance index across the three western districts in West Bengal, India."

Main index	Description		Purulia District	Bankura District	Paschim Medinipur District
Rule of law	Government rules regulating forest use		0.017	0.037	0.014
	Existence of any rule for use of forest product		0.233	0.173	0.172
	Encouragement for timber brokers for deforestation due to leakage in forest laws		0.391	0.171	0.258
	Weak forest administration leads deforestation		0.044	0.092	0.035
	Encouraging encroachers and illegal extraction due to political intervention		0.619	0.447	0.366
	Strong administration saves reserve forest		0.276	0.101	0.106
Transparency	Need of permission to collect or harvest forest product		0.233	0.589	0.055
	If yes, do the users have to pay		0.585	0.796	0.415
	Issuance of permit by the correct authority		0.452	0.476	0.115
	Clearance of the agenda of the meeting		0.202	0.952	0.288
Accountability	Regular presence in the meeting of the Forest Protection Committee		0.355	0.059	0.148
	Experience of conflict in last 5 years		0.563	0.601	0.488
	Obeying government rules by community members		0.034	0.033	0.025
Participation	Planning index	Forest boundary demarcation	0.578	0.318	0.533
		Identifying forest users	0.867	0.450	0.594
		Participatory forest resource assessment	0.579	0.439	0.627
		Forest management committee election	0.779	0.814	0.326
		Encouraging others to participate	0.639	0.636	0.575
		Preparing forest management plan	0.571	0.373	0.662
		Developing forest management by laws	0.577	0.404	0.662
		Approval of forest management agreement	0.857	0.395	0.674
	Implementation index	Reforestation of degraded forest areas	0.721	0.443	0.415
		Planting of fruit bearing trees such as mahua and mango	0.700	0.669	0.467
		Planting trees and management	0.681	0.689	0.371
		Nursery establishment	0.742	0.487	0.315
		Beekeeping	0.468	0.456	0.577
		Forest fire fighting	0.677	0.779	0.641
		Attending meetings	0.863	0.908	0.298
		Participation in knowledge and skill developing training	0.500	0.283	0.631
	Monitoring index	Follow ups forest managements by law	0.462	0.184	0.538
		Forest patrols	0.528	0.252	0.568
		Reporting of illegal activities	0.873	0.833	0.289
		Supervise forest management plan implementation	0.521	0.167	0.707
		Forest boundary maintenance	0.511	0.272	0.617
Inclusiveness and equitability	Self-help group formation for female members		0.579	0.509	0.376
Efficiency and effectiveness	Changes in the availability of wood and non-timber forest product in the last five years		0.536	0.446	0.119
Efficiency and effectiveness	Poverty eradication programme reduce dependency on forest products		0.472	0.149	0.063
Forest governance index			0.446	0.397	0.302

Table S2

Table S3

References 76

[1]	Agrawal, A., Ostrom, E., 2001. Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit. Soc. 29(4), 485-514. doi: 10.1177/0032329201029004002
[2]	Ardiyanto, S.Y., Saraswati, R., Soponyono, E., 2022. Law enforcement and community participation in combating illegal logging and deforestation in Indonesia. Environment and Ecology Research. 10(4), 450-460. doi: 10.13189/eer.2022.100403
[3]	Assunção, J., Gandour, C., Pessoa, P., et al., 2017. Property-level assessment of change in forest clearing patterns: The need for tailoring policy in the Amazon. Land Use Pol. 66, 18-27. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.04.022
[4]	Barbier, E., Richard, D., Daniel, L., 2005. Corruption, trade and resource conversion. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 50(2), 276-299. doi: 10.1016/j.jeem.2004.12.004
[5]	Basu, J.P., 2017. Climate Change Adaptation and Forest Dependent Communities. An Analytical Perspective of Different Agro-climatic Regions of West Bengal, India. [2022-01-12]. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-52325-5.
[6]	Basu, J.P., 2020. Forest dependence, institutions and enforcement-an empirical study in the drought prone district of Purulia, West Bengal. Indian Journal of Ecology. 47(4), 1068-1073.
[7]	Basu, J.P., 2021. Forest participation of local communities: a study of a tribal dominated region in India. J. Social Econ. Dev. 23(1), 180-201. doi: 10.1007/s40847-020-00142-w
[8]	Basu, J.P., 2023. Governance and Institution in the Indian Forest Sector: An Analytical Study. [2022-01-12]. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-34746-7.
[9]	Behera, B., Engel, S., 2004. The four levels of Institutional Analysis of Evolution of Joint Forest Management (JFM) in India: A New Institutional Economics (NIE) Approach. [2022-01-12]. https://docslib.org/doc/9969974/the-four-levels-of-institutional-analysis-of-evolution -of-joint-forest-management-jfm-in-india-a-new-institutional-economics-nie-approach.
[10]	Bellassen, V., Gitz, V., 2008. Reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation in cameroon-assessing costs and benefits. Ecol. Econ. 68(1-2), 336-344. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.015
[11]	Bera, B., Saha, S., Bhattacharjee, S., 2020. Forest cover dynamics (1998 to 2019) and prediction of deforestation probability using binary logistic regression (BLR) model of Silabati watershed. India. Trees, Forests and People. 2, 1-10.
[12]	Bösch, M., 2021. Institutional quality, economic development and illegal logging: A quantitative cross-national analysis. Euro. Eur. J. For. Res. 140, 1049-1064.
[13]	Bose, P., 2011. Forest tenure reform: Exclusion of tribal women’s rights in Semi-arid Rajasthan, India. Int. For. Rev. 13(2), 220-231.
[14]	Bose, P., Arts, B., van Dijk, H., 2012. Forest governmentality: A genealogy of subject-making of forest dependent ‘scheduled tribes’ in India. Land Use Pol. 29(3), 664-673. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.11.002
[15]	Bruce, M., Akakpo, O.B., Ly, M., et al., 2018. What Role do Forests and Governance Play in Countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions to the Paris Climate Agreement? - Case Study from Cameroon. London: Fern and Climate Analytics.
[16]	Bujang, M.A., Sa’at, N., Sidik, T.M.I., et al., 2018. Sample size guidelines for logistic regression from observational studies with large population: emphasis on the accuracy between statistics and parameters based on real life clinical data. Malays. J. Med. Sci. 25(4), 122-130.
[17]	Carrasco, L.R., Nghiem, T.P., Chen, Z., et al., 2017. Unsustainable development pathways caused by tropical deforestation. Sci. Adv. 3(7), e1602602, doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1602602.
[18]	Casson, A., Obidzinski, K., 2002. From new order to regional autonomy: shifting dynamics of “Illegal” logging in Kalimantan, Indonesia. World Dev. 30(12), 2132-2151.
[19]	Government of India, 2011. Census of India, Government of India. [2023-01-15]. https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/.
[20]	Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., 2008. Forest commons and local enforcement. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A. 105(36), 13286-13291.
[21]	Christoph, O., Philipp, L.W., Schmerbeck, J., 2015. Institutions for sustainable forest governance: Robustness, equity and cross-level interactions in Mawlyngbna, Meghalaya in India. Int. J. Commons. 9(2), 670-697. doi: 10.18352/ijc.538
[22]	Delabre, I., Boyd, E., Brockhaus, M., et al., 2020. Unearthing the myths of global sustainable forest governance. Glob. Sustain. 3, 1-10.
[23]	Downs, F., Tacconi, L., 2017. A framework to assess the impacts of corruption on forests and prioritize responses. Land Use Pol. 60, 113-122. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.021
[24]	Echeverria, C., Coomes, D.A., Hall, M., et al., 2008. Spatially explicit models to analyze forest loss and fragmentation between 1976 and 2020 in southern Chile. Ecol. Model. 212(3-4), 439-449. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.10.045
[25]	FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 2011. Global Forest Resource Assessment. Key Findings. Rome: FAO,12.
[26]	FSI (India State Forest Report), 2019. India State Forest Report. [2023-01-15]. https://www.fsi.nic.in/forest-report-2019.
[27]	Galinato, G.I., Galinato, S.P., 2013. The short-run and long-run effects of corruption control and political stability on forest cover. Ecol. Econ. 89, 153-161. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.02.014
[28]	Gaveau, D.L.A., Linkie, M., Suyadi, et al., 2009. Three decades of deforestation in southwest Sumatra: effects of coffee prices, law enforcement and rural poverty. Biol. Conserv. 142(3), 597-605. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.11.024
[29]	Gayen, A., Saha, S., 2018. Deforestation probable area predicted by logistic regression in Pathro river basin: A tributary of Ajay River. Spat. Inf. Res. 26(1), 1-9. doi: 10.1007/s41324-017-0151-1
[30]	Ghosh, M., Sinha, B., 2016. Impact of forest policies on timber production in India: A review. Natural Resources Forum. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 62-76.
[31]	Goncalves, M.P., Panjer, M., Greenberg., T.S., et al., 2012. Justice for forests: Improving criminal justice efforts to combat illegal logging. World Bank Studies. Washington D.C.: the World Bank, 1-60.
[32]	Hanneke, V., Vincent, G.V., Maria, J.S., 2022. Forest governance and development effects on tropical charcoal production and deforestation. Environ. Res. Lett. 17(2), 24-40.
[33]	IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1-863.
[34]	Joshi, A.K., Pant, P., Kumar, P., et al., 2011. National forest policy in India: Critique of targets and implementation. Small-Scale For. 10(1), 83-96. doi: 10.1007/s11842-010-9133-z
[35]	Joshi, P., Beck, K., 2017. Environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation: Evidence using GMM estimation for OECD and non-OECD regions. iForest. 10(1), 196-203. doi: 10.3832/ifor2066-009
[36]	Kalamandeen, M., Gloor, E., Mitchard, E., et al., 2018. Pervasive rise of small-scale deforestation in Amazonia. Sci. Rep. 8(1), 1600, doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19358-2. pmid: 29371623
[37]	Karanth, K.K., de Fries, R., 2010. Conservation and management in human-dominated landscapes: Case studies from India. Biol. Conserv. 143(12), 2865-2869. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.002
[38]	Khan, A.M., Hussain, A., Siddique, S., et al., 2017. Effects of deforestation on socio-economy and associated insect pests in district, Swat, Pakistan. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 5(1), 954-960.
[39]	Luttrell, C., Obidzinski, K., Brockhaus, M., et al., 2011. Lessons for REDD+ from Measures to Control Illegal Logging in Indonesia. Bogor: the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 1-90.
[40]	Malik, Z.A., Pandey, R., Bhat, A.B., 2016. Anthropogenic disturbances and their impact on vegetation in Western Himalaya, India. J. Mt. Sci. 13(1), 69-82. doi: 10.1007/s11629-015-3533-7
[41]	Minlah, M.K., Zhang, X.B., Ganyoh, P.N., et al., 2021. Does the environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation exist for Ghana? Evidence from the bootstrap rolling window Granger causality test approach. Forestry Economics Review. 3(1), 38-52. doi: 10.1108/FER-03-2021-0008
[42]	MoEF (Ministry of Environment & Forest), 1988. Annual Report, Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India. [2023-01-15]. https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/AR-87-88.pdf.
[43]	MoEF, 2006. Report of the National Forest Commission. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India, 1-420.
[44]	Mohanty, B., Sahu, G., 2012. An empirical study on elements of forest governance: A study of JFM implementation models in odisha. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 37, 314-323. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.297
[45]	Nagendra, H., Gokhale, Y., 2008. Management regimes, property rights, and forest biodiversity in Nepal and India. Environ. Manage. 41(5), 719-733. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9073-y pmid: 18288521
[46]	Ostermann, S.L., 2016. Rule of law against the odds: overcoming poverty and the high cost of compliance in the developing world. Law Policy. 38(2), 101-123. doi: 10.1111/lapo.2016.38.issue-2
[47]	Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons:The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. 86(1), 248-249.
[48]	Palmer, C.E., 2001. The Extent and Causes of Illegal Logging: An Analysis of a Major Cause of Tropical Deforestation in Indonesia. London: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), 1-33.
[49]	Pandit, K., Bevilacqua, E., Mountrakis, G., et al., 2016. Spatial analysis of forest crimes in Mark Twain National Forest, Missouri. Journal of Geospatial Application in Natural Resources. 1(1), 39-53
[50]	Pant, K.R., 2021. Analysis of forest governance in far-western Terairegion of Nepal. Contemporary Research: An Interdisciplinary Academic Journal. 5(1), 35-50. doi: 10.3126/craiaj.v5i1.40481
[51]	Pellegrini, L., Gerlagh, R., 2006. Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy: An empirical contribution to the debate. The Journal of Environment & Development. 15(3), 332-54.
[52]	Probst, B., BenYishay, A., Kontoleon, A., et al., 2020. Impacts of a large-scale titling initiative on deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Nat. Sustain. 3, 1019-1026. doi: 10.1038/s41893-020-0537-2
[53]	Reboredo, F., 2013. Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging. Environment Systems and Decisions. 33, 295-304. doi: 10.1007/s10669-013-9444-7
[54]	RECOFTC (The Center for People and Forests). 2018. Assessing Forest Governance in Myanmar. Identifying Key Challenges and Interventions to Strengthen Governance. Bangkok: RECOFTC, 1-8.
[55]	Richard, J.C., 2007. Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: An institutional perspective. Ecol. Econ. 61(2-3), 429-437. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.014
[56]	Rivera, S., Martinez, A.P., Ramsey, R.D., et al., 2012. Spatial modeling of tropical deforestation using socioeconomic and biophysical data. Small-Scale For. 12, 321-334. doi: 10.1007/s11842-012-9214-2
[57]	Robinson, E.J.Z., Kumar, A.M., Albers, H.J., 2010. Protecting developing countries’ forests: Enforcement in theory and practice. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research. 2(1), 25-38. doi: 10.1080/19390450903350820
[58]	Rossiter, D.G, Loza, A., 2008. Technical Note: Analyzing Land Cover Change with R. Enschede: International Institute for Geo-information Science & Earth Observation (ITC), 1-43.
[59]	Roy, B., 2006. Women’s participation in the Forest Governance: A case study of Buxa Tiger Reserve Forests. Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. 2(10), 48-59.
[60]	Schroeder, H., 2010. Agency in international climate negotiations: the case of indigenous peoples and avoided deforestation. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. 10(4), 317-332. doi: 10.1007/s10784-010-9138-2
[61]	Shah, A., Guru, B., 2003. Poverty in Remote Rural Areas in India: A Review of Evidence and Issues. Ahmedabad: Gujarat Institute of Development Research, 13-69.
[62]	Shrestha, S., Shrestha, U.B., Bawa, K., 2018. Socio-economic factors and management regimes as drivers of tree cover change in Nepal. PeerJ. 6, e4855, doi: 10.7717/peerj.4855.
[63]	Sittumorang, A.W., Nababan, A., Tarigan, A.N., et al., 2015. The 2014 Indonesis Forest Governance Index, UNDP Indonesia. [2023-01-15]. https://www.undp.org/indonesia/publications/executive-summary-2014-indonesia-forest-governance-index.
[64]	Sloan, S., Sayer, J.A., 2015. Forest resources assessment of 2015 shows positive global trends but forest loss and degradation persist in poor tropical countries. For. Ecol. Manage. 352, 134-145. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.013
[65]	Smith, J., Colan, V., Sabogal, C., et al., 2006. Why policy reforms fail to improve logging practices: The role of governance and norms in Peru. For. Forest Policy Econ. 8(4), 458-469. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2005.08.001
[66]	Tacconi, L., 2007. The problem of illegal logging. In: Tacconi, L., (ed.). Illegal Logging: Law Enforcement, Livelihoods and the Timber Trade. London: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), 301.
[67]	Tacconi, L., Cerutti, P.O., Leipold, S., et al., Defining illegal forest activities and illegal logging. In: Kleinschmit, D., Mansourian, S., Wildburger, C., (eds.). Illegal Logging and Related Timber Trade-Dimensions, Drivers, Impacts and Responses. A Global Scientific Rapid Assessment Report. Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), 23-36.
[68]	Tacconi, L., Rodrigues, R.J., Maryudi, A., 2019. Law enforcement and deforestation: lessons for Indonesia from Brazil. Forest Policy Econ. 108(101943), 1-10.
[69]	Tacconi, L., Williams, D.A., 2020. Corruption and anti-corruption in environmental and resource management. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 45, 305-329. doi: 10.1146/energy.2020.45.issue-1
[70]	TERI (The Energy and Resource Institute), 2004. Socio-Economic and Institutional Assessment for Forest Sector Analysis in Jharkhand. New Delhi: Tropical Forestry Management Programmeme, 186.
[71]	Ullah, S., Wu, Y., Khan, A.I., 2023. Evaluating the socio-economic factors on deforestation in Northern Pakistan: A study on existing economic incentive tools for reducing deforestation. Sustainability. 15(7), 1-22. doi: 10.3390/su15010001
[72]	Umemiya, C., Rametsteiner, E., Kraxner, F., 2010. Quantifying the impacts of the quality of governance on deforestation. Environ. Sci. Policy. 13(8), 695-701. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.07.002
[73]	United Nations, 2006. Good Governance Practices for the Protection of Human Rights. Geneva: Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1-94.
[74]	Waldhoff, P., Vidal, E., 2015. Community loggers attempting to legalize traditional timber harvesting in the Brazilian Amazon: An endless path. Forest Policy Econ. 50, 311-318. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.08.005
[75]	World Bank, 2018. World Development Report-Governance and the Law. [2023-01-15]. www.worldbank.org/en/topic/governance/brief/anti-corruption.
[76]	Yanai, A.M, Graça, P.M.L.A., Ziccardi, L.G., et al., 2022. Brazil’s Amazonian deforestation: the role of landholdings in undesignated public lands. Reg. Envir. Chang. 22(1), 1-14. doi: 10.1007/s10113-021-01864-1

District	Performance of forest governance						Performance of forest governance index
District	Rule of law index	Transparency index	Accountability index	Participation index	Inclusiveness and equitability index	Efficiency and effectiveness index	Performance of forest governance index
Purulia	Medium	Medium	Medium	Good	Good	Good	Medium
Bankura	Poor	Good	Poor	Medium	Good	Medium	Medium
Paschim Medinipur	Poor	Poor	Poor	Good	Medium	Poor	Poor

Variable		Mean	Standard deviation	Minimum	Maximum
Independent variable	Forest governance index	0.37	0.14	0.04	0.90
	Enforcement index	0.49	0.33	0.00	1.00
	Education index	0.22	0.17	0.00	0.92
	Land holdings (hm²/household)	0.21	0.28	0.00	1.36
	Forest income (%)	17.41	16.65	0.00	100.00
	Age of households (years old)	48.01	12.98	20.00	82.00
	Caste of households (scheduled castes=1, scheduled tribes=2, other backward class=3, and general castes=4)	2.29	0.95	1.00	4.00
Dependent variable	Probability of deforestation	0.47	0.50	0.00	1.00

Variable	Forest governance index	Enforcement index	Education index	Land holdings	Forest income	Age of households	Caste of households
Intercept	1.430^* (0.229)	1.880^* (0.250)	1.890^* (0.291)	1.843^* (0.840)	1.840^* (0.293)	2.034^* (0.412)	2.040^* (0.427)
Forest governance index	-4.226^* (0.588)	-3.224^* (0.613)	-3.223^* (0.619)	-3.346^* (0.625)	-3.378^* (0.656)	-3.353^* (0.657)	-3.342^* (0.662)
Enforcement index		-1.727^* (0.266)	-1.721^* (0.268)	-1.725^* (0.267)	-1.736^* (0.275)	-1.735^* (0.275)	-1.728^* (0.280)
Education index			-0.003 (0.491)	-0.198 (0.503)	-0.182 (0.513)	-0.195 (0.513)	-0.179 (0.525)
Land holdings				0.042^** (0.020)	0.042^** (0.021)	0.456^** (0.022)	0.045^* (0.022)
Forest income					0.001 (0.006)	0.002 (0.005)	0.001 (0.005)
Age of households						-0.004 (0.006)	-0.003 (0.006)
Caste of households							-0.013 (0.937)
Statistical tests
AIC	1.304	1.243	1.246	1.140	1.246	1.249	1.251
LRchi²(x²)	57.0	102.0	101.0	106.3	105.8	105.2	104.3
Pseudo R²	0.1050	0.2062	0.2062	0.2215	0.2105	0.2110	0.2110
Log likelihood	-450.04	-427.91	-427.91	-425.86	-425.85	-425.62	-425.61

Sub-index	Description
Preventing illegal logging	Whether the communities detect an illegal logging? (Yes=1, no=2, and don’t know=3)
Forest patrolling	Whether the communities’ patrols work for forest? (Yes=1, no=2, and don’t know=3)
Rules for getting permission to collect forest product	Whether there are any strict rule for getting permission to collect forest products beyond the specified amount? (Yes=1, no=2, and don’t know=3)
Permissions issued by appropriate authority	Whether the permission is issued by Forest Protection committee? (Yes=1, no=2, and don’t know=3)