PROFILELocal Peoples’ Knowledge, Aptitude andPerceptions of Planning and Management Issues inNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, IndiaKOTTAPALLI S. RAO*SUNIL NAUTIYALG.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and

DevelopmentKosi-Katarmal, Almora 263 643, India

RAKESH K. MAIKHURIG.B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environment and

DevelopmentGarhwal Unit, P.B. 92Srinagar (Garhwal) 246174, India

KRISHNA G. SAXENASchool of Environmental SciencesJawaharlal Nehru UniversityNew Delhi 110067, India

ABSTRACT / Local peoples’ knowledge, aptitude, and percep-tions of planning and management issues were investigated inNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR) in Uttaranchal State ofIndia. Conflicts ensued between local inhabitants and the man-agement authority due to lack of community participation. Al-

though most respondents seem to claim the knowledge of theobjectives of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, the source of infor-mation indicates their interaction with the management authorityis not frequent. While local population seem to agree on reducedintensity of agriculture with compensation equal to loss of netincome, there is a perceptible difference in responses amongdifferent age groups. While the younger generation seems toagree to move away to other areas with suitable compensationpackages, the older generation prefer those options that requiresome adjustments in use and access to natural resources. Theoption of ecotourism as a source of income is acceptable tomost respondents, but young and old respondents disagreedabout impact of such activity on social behavior of local inhabit-ants. Among those groups studied, only the “self-employedgroup” seem to be more interested in ecotourism in comparisonto other occupation classes. Gender differences in perceptionsare prominent with reference to development options. While themen preferred economic opportunities, the women preferredimproved living conditions. An evaluation mechanism similar tothe one described in this paper will be helpful to the managementauthority to assess and modify their management plans to miti-gate conflicts with local people.

Biosphere reserves, according to Indian legislation,are protected areas with the following aims: (1) theprotection of the environment/habitat of specific spe-cies, (2) the promotion of scientific research and envi-ronmental education, and (3) the improvement of so-cial and economic status of local people to ensuresustainable use of natural resources under traditionalpatterns of land use (Rai 1998). Each biosphere reserveconsists of a core area, of strict conservation impor-tance, and a buffer zone. In the core area only scientificresearch and monitoring are allowed. In the bufferzone, natural resource use is generally permitted forsubsistence uses and economic gain through exploita-tion of natural resources is prohibited. Activities such asecotourism and animal husbandry provide economic

opportunities, and only earmarked areas may be usedfor such activities. Human communities, especiallythose living in and around protected areas, often haveimportant and long-standing relationships with theseareas. The indigenous communities depend on theresources of these areas for their livelihood and cul-tural survival. These relationships embrace culturalidentity, and such subsistence practices contribute tothe maintenance of biological diversity in the region(Nepal and Weber 1995, Ramakrishnan and others1996, Ghimire and Pimbert 1997). Such relationshipsare generally ignored and even destroyed by resourceconservation and management initiatives (MacKinnonand others 1986, Buch-Hansen 1997 Hough 1988, Mc-Neely 1988, Maikhuri and others 2001). In developingcountries such as India, the protected areas are estab-lished on lands possessed and used by local people.Protected areas can not coexist with communities thatare hostile to them (Kiss 1990, Durbin and Ralambo1994, Happold 1995, Alpert 1996, Heinen 1996, De-Boer and Baquete 1998, Maikhuri and others 2000b,

KEY WORDS: Biosphere Reserve; Local people; Perceptions; Planningand evaluation; Management; Garhwal Himalaya; India

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; email:srkottapalli@yahoo.com; ks_rao@vsnl.com

DOI: 10.1007/s00267-002-2830-4

Environmental Management Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 168–181 © 2003 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Rao and others 2002), but they can achieve significantsocial and economic objectives, when placed in aproper context (Buch-Hansen 1997, Sherpa 1987, Lu-cas 1992, Durbin and Ralambo 1994, Rao and others2002). The establishment and management of pro-tected areas and the use of resources in and aroundthem must be socially responsive and just. In manycases, the continuation and development of humanactivities in protected areas should be accepted, in sofor as they are compatible with conservation objectives(Wells and Brandon 1992). Community participationand equality need to be achieved in decision makingprocesses (Indian Board of Wildlife 1983, Culen andothers 1984, Rodgers and Panwar 1988, Kothari andothers 1989, IUCN 1993, Vandergast 1996, Mehta andKellert 1998, Maikhuri and others 1998, Singh andothers 2000, Rao and others 2000, Papageorgiou 2001).

In the process of establishing the national parks(later their conversion to biosphere reserves) participa-tion of locals has been conspicuously absent in India.Although the procedural drill is completed with theparticipation of elected representatives of villages and afew influential persons from the region, the commonman generally was not informed, as required. The lackof education makes things difficult and the public no-tices put up are seldom noticed (Maikhuri and others1998, Singh and others 2000). This lack of participationresults in conflicts with the management authority,which is only trying to apply the existing law. Mostcommon are instances of poaching, illegal timber ex-traction, and grazing in prohibited areas and conver-sion of private lands to activities antagonistic to conser-vation priorities of the area.

The decision-making process may be thought of as aseries of interconnected steps, leading from the recog-nition of a problem and the identification of potentialsolutions to the selection and adaptation of an appro-priate strategy (Sewell 1973). The outcome of the de-cision-making process is affected considerably by theperceptions and attitudes of the various participants inthe process (White 1966). To succeed in incorporatingconservation commitment in planning and practice,one must be aware of, and involved in, the concerns ofothers. Success in protecting, for example, a landscapein a nation or region depends not just on governmentsupport and the local management organizations; italso depends on the reaction and involvement of thelocal population. An example of formal communityparticipation in a protected area is the case of Sagar-matha National Park in Nepal, where there was localnegotiation and agreement with the local population atthe outset. Support for the economy and local heritageis integral to such negotiation and administration

(Hough 1988, Hough and Sherpa 1989). Other exam-ples where people themselves have taken initiatives inprotecting the landscapes include the Chanki ridge inNagaland and Jardhar in Garhwal Himalaya(Choudhury 1998, Semwal and others 1999). The com-munities here used their powers to exclude user pres-sures on these landscapes to conserve natural re-sources, which put additional burden on the localpopulation. Past research in the biosphere reserves inIndia concerned primarily the flora and fauna, thevisitors, and the impact on human populations living inthe surroundings (Reed 1978, Lamba 1987, Rodgersand Panwar 1989, Kothari and others 1989, IUCN 1993,Hajra and Balodi 1995, Maikhuri and others 1998,2000a, Singh and others 2000). However, studies on theknowledge, aptitude, and perceptions of local peopleare very limited. The results indicate that, to date, thecost borne by the communities is high relative to thebenefits received. Since social research efforts remaininternationally focused on visitors to protected areas,systematically conducted research to understand localpopulations living in or adjacent to such areas mightoffer new insights (Trakolis 2001).

The Study Area

The area selected for research was Nanda Devi Bio-sphere Reserve (79°40�E and 80°5�E Longitude and 30°17�N and 30°41�N Latitude) in Uttaranchal Himalayaof India (Figure 1), at the border with Peoples’ Repub-lic of China (Tibet). It has an area of 2236.74 km2 withan altitude of 1900–7814 m. The core area comprisesthe entire Rishi Ganga valley, which was declared asanctuary in 1939. The area harbors a great diversity ofendemic plants, attracts international attention due toits great potential for mountaineering and adventuretourism, and is the birthplace of the Chipko move-ment.1 Hence it was declared a national park in 1982.Its status was upgraded to biosphere reserve on 18January 1988. This area was recognized as a worldheritage site in 1992. It is an area of great biodiversity,rich in fauna and flora species. There are about 400species of tree, 552 species of herbs and shrubs, and 18species of grasses (Kacher 1976, 1977, Hajra and Jain1983, Department of Environment 1987, Balodi, 1993,Samant 1993).

The landscape surrounding the core zone consists ofreserve forests, community forests, private lands, and

1In Hindi, the word chipko means “to hug.” As the local people huggedor embraced the trees to protect them from loggers, these activitiesbecame known as the Chipko movement.

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 169

underutilized village commons. Agriculture, forests, al-pine meadows, wastelands (areas with extremely poorvegetation and soil), and permanent snow account for0.7%, 22.2%, 4.5%, 6.6% and 66%, respectively, of thereserve area (Sahai and Kimothi 1996). Some forestregeneration was reported during the last two decadesaround the habitations (Bisht 2000). There are 17 set-tlements of the Bhotiya tribe in the buffer zone, acommunity that is socially differentiated into a privi-leged group with larger holdings and an underprivi-leged group with very small holdings. Agriculture andanimal husbandry are the primary occupations of thelocal people. Livestock feed is derived from crop resi-dues, fodder lopped from forests, and grazing in villagecommons, alpine grazing lands, and forests. A mixtureof leaf litter and livestock excreta is used to manurecrop fields. Nontimber forest products, woolen hand-looms, supplement the rural economy.

The climatic year consists of three seasons—summer(April–June), rainy (June–September), and winter (Oc-tober–March). Average annual rainfall is 928.81 mm.About 47.8% of annual rainfall occurs over a two-months period (July–August), featuring a strong mon-soon influence. The maximum temperature rangesfrom 14°C to 24°C and minimum from 3°C to 7.5°C(Nautiyal 1998).

To achieve the objectives of the Man and Biosphere(MAB) program in a comprehensive and continuous

way, a detailed management plan for NDBR was pre-pared for the period 1993–1994 to 1997–1998 (Mohan1992). The main thrust of this plan is ecorestorationand ecodevelopment (Kumar 1998).

Research Objectives

The fulfillment of the objectives of the biospherereserve, as the local people perceive it, has not beenpreviously investigated. Since there was no involvementof the local population in the designation procedure,locals may well perceive the protected status of thebiosphere reserve to be a barrier to their own develop-ment. The present research had five main objectives:

1. To collect information on the awareness of localpeople in connection with the objectives of thebiosphere reserve.

2. To understand the local’s views on the impact ofthe biosphere reserve on the economic, social, andcultural status of local people.

3. To identify the priorities concerning the ecodevel-opment activities within the biosphere reserve.

4. To examine the reactions of local people towardsvarious possible measures if the core area of thebiosphere reserve is in danger due to their produc-tion (agriculture and animal husbandry) activities.

5. To explore the locals’ views on the effectiveness ofthe existing administrative setup.

The Research Method

The research was carried out by means of a ques-tionnaire, administered through personal interviews(Mukherjee 1995). Our work on the inventory of agro-biodiversity (Maikhuri and others 1996) and manage-ment of natural resources (Maikhuri and others 2000a)helped to guide the design in accordance with theobjectives. The surveyed population included the localpeople over 18 years old living in the area in 10 villages(both practicing transhumance and settled permanent-ly). Although every individual, including children olderthan 5 years, plays an active role in natural resourcecollection and production activities, as per the law ofthe land only people older than 18 years have the rightto participate in the democratic process of electinggovernments and thus in the decision-making processand management of resources. There were 2253 indi-viduals (419 households) in the villages studied. Allhouseholds were censused, and the number of respon-dents (individuals older than 18 years of age) was 1503,which amounted to about 67% of the total populationof these villages. The survey was conducted between

Figure 1. Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, Garhwal Himalaya.

170 K. S. Rao and others

March 1996 and November 1997, while staying in thesevillages to conduct detailed studies on the productionsystems and function of the village ecosystem (Nautiyal1998), and supplemented with additional surveys dur-ing 1998 and 1999. Interviews were conducted in therespondent’s household in the afternoons whenwomen are working on their woolen handlooms orafter dinner. Care was taken to avoid the respondentbeing influenced by the views of other members in thefamily. While one member of the research team inter-viewed the respondent, the other family members wereengaged in discussion or shown photos by the othermembers of the research team. Failure to achieve suc-cess in such segregation required repeat interviews ofthe individual at a different time. As the research teamcontained both male and female students who werepursuing doctoral degrees and had been known to thelocal inhabitants for some time, access to women re-spondents in their household was not restricted. Of thetotal respondents, 51.3% were males and the rest 48.7%were females. The respondents clearly knew that theinvestigating team was pursuing academic research andwas in no way directly related to the management au-thority or any of the administrative setups. This, cou-pled with the ability of doctoral students who are part of

the investigation team to be accepted as part of thefamily and villages, helped in getting total cooperationand frank answers and opinions. A chi-square (�2) testwas used to establish statistical difference across the agegroups, occupational groups and gender as applicable.

Results

Social Characteristics of Local People

Information was sought on people’s age and occu-pation. Among the respondents, the 25–34 age class wasthe largest, followed by the 18–24 and 35–44 classes(Table 1). Although Uttaranchal State, of which thestudy area is a part, traditionally has more females thanmales, the number of males in the 10 studied villages ofNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (NDBR) is slightlyhigher. Due to the special attention given by the gov-ernment to the region, the educational facilities haveimproved and the number of people who could read orwrite had drastically increased. However, the number ofstudents dropping out of school before completinghigh school is also very high in the region. With regardto occupation, the majority of residents were farmers(Table 2). Although they have secondary occupations

Table 1. Age characteristics of the sample

Age group(yr) Males

% of totalmales Females

% of totalfemales Total

% of totalpopulation

�7 209 18.40 211 18.89 420 18.647–18 156 13.73 174 15.58 330 14.6518–24 182 16.02 151 13.52 333 14.7825–34 204 17.96 208 18.62 412 18.2935–44 154 13.55 166 14.86 320 14.2046–64 134 11.80 133 11.91 267 11.85�65 97 8.54 74 6.62 171 7.59Total 1136 1117 2253

Table 2. Occupational characteristics of the sample

Category

% of totalpopulation�18 years

Males(N)

Females(N)

Transhumant pastoralistOf currently transhumant village 13.6 204 0Of currently settled village 1.7 25 0

Settled agriculturistOf currently transhumant village 26.8 102 301Of currently settled village 49.0 326 412

Other occupationsOf currently transhumant village 3.2 40 8Of currently settled village 5.7 74 11

Total 771 722

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 171

such as animal husbandry, household industry, manualworkers, and government service, almost every house-hold in the villages studied practiced agriculture. Ac-cording to Silori and Badola (1998), the occupationalstatus of the population in these villages is 55%, 12%,11%, and 9%, respectively, for agriculture and house-hold industry, manual workers, government service,and self-employment categories. Only children younger5 years of age and very old persons are considered asnot participating in productive activities. Women formthe main workforce for agriculture, the component ofanimal husbandry where animals are kept in the vil-lages, and woolen handlooms.

Knowledge of Local People about the BiosphereReserve

Interviewees were asked about their knowledge ofthe objectives of the biosphere reserve in which theywere residing and the source of information. Informa-tion was sought on how much they knew about thebiosphere reserve 20 years after its designation and 26years after the core area was brought under the pro-tected area network as a national park. Except for a fewwomen, most respondents answered that they knew theobjectives of the biosphere reserve they inhabit, butwhen asked to list the objectives most respondents an-swered protection of the environment in general fol-lowed by protection of fauna in general. Only few re-spondents who interacted with research teamsanswered that the objectives were to protect the snowleopard and musk deer (Table 3). Regarding thesource of information, most respondents gave the vil-

lage Panchayat2 meeting as the primary source followedby interactive meetings of the management authority.Only some (N � 740) individuals gave ‘interactionwith researchers’ as one of the sources. Respondentsalso informed that over the last 5 years or so the num-ber of interactive meetings by the management author-ity was negligible and if organized only had select gath-ering. Although the village elected representatives, ex-army personnel in the respondents answered that theyhave seen and read the brochures and pamphletsbrought out by the Management Authority, none ofthem possessed it now or seen it during the last fewyears. Few respondents who participated in two of thework review meetings organized by the present investi-gation team attributed the posters displayed about theresearch activities as the objectives of the BiosphereReserve.

Aptitude

The realization that policing large areas under theprotected area network with limited manpower andresources is not feasible, at least in areas where thedependencies of local inhabitants on the natural re-sources existing in the region are high, prompted someexperts to suggest peoples’ participation in manage-ment as a possible mechanism, although such a mech-anism may adversely influence the objectives of pro-tected areas and their status. The study villages are

2Panchayat is an elected council at the village level, which makesadministrative decisions and implements government policies/pro-grams.

Table 3. Knowledge about biosphere reserve among local inhabitants

Response Males Females

A. Knowledge of objectivesQuestion: Do you know the objectives of the Biosphere ReserveYes 746 461No 25 271Total 771 732

B. List of objectives mentioned by respondentsa

Question: If yes; mention the objectives that you knowProtection of the environment in general 762 701Protection of fauna in general 596 628Protection of Snow leopard (Panthera uncia) 340 164Protection of Musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster) 86 79

C. Source of information about objectivesa

Question: How did you learn about the objectives of Biosphere Reserve?Management authority meeting 568 396Village Panchayat meeting 729 701Interaction with researchers 461 279

aData in the columns include multiple listing of open ended responses.

172 K. S. Rao and others

where the Chipko (hugging the trees) conservationmovement began, and thus it is presumed that the spiritof environmental conservation still exists in these villag-ers who participated in this movement. Being a trans-humant community, managing the natural resourcescarefully was also part of their life style. Thus, under-standing the aptitude of local inhabitants for conserv-ing the core area through various management policieswas pertinent.

Continuation of agriculture with traditional cropsbut at a reduced scale and with compensation for theloss of income as a possible management policy wasacceptable to most respondents. This was followed bythe option “compensate the local farmers for a periodof 30–50 years with equivalent of net income fromfarms/livestock so as they could move away from thearea in the mean time to other occupations/places”and “continuation of agriculture with alternate crops(medicinal and aromatic plants) with suitable market-ing infrastructure as the next best options” (Table 4).Respondents in younger age groups seem to be moreinterested in moving away from the region, and thusthe option, “exchange of farms with suitable agricul-tural land in the area little away from core zone” and“expropriation of farms and animals with special prices,higher than their market value, so that residents grad-ually change occupation,” are preferred. Only a fewindividuals thought of continuing with the present sys-tem as a possible option in the given situation. Cross-tabulating the gender of the respondent with the re-

sponses given to each of the possible managementpolicies, if their activities are harmful to core zone andwildlife, indicates that there was no difference for themost preferred option “continuation of agriculturewith traditional crops but at a reduced scale and com-pensated for the loss of income” (�2 � 1.076, df � 2,P � 0.05). However, with reference to other options,the responses showed significant differences betweenmales and females.

Perceptions

Perception of impact on production systems and economicopportunities. One of the objectives of the biospherereserves is the improvement of the economic status oflocal people through traditional methods of naturalresource use. Ecotourism is one of the potential eco-nomic options, and people enjoyed both interactionswith visitors and direct wage earnings when the touristflow was good until 1982. Due to restrictions imposedon visits to the core area where most known peaks existand lack of infrastructure at potential sites in the bufferzone, the number of visitors decreased drastically overthe last two decades. Table 5 shows that a high percent-age of respondents feel the designation of the area as anational park and subsequently as a biosphere reserve isdetrimental to their economic opportunities. Both pro-duction systems (agriculture and livestock) and off-farm opportunities (ecotourism and forestry sectorwages were reduced, and the options for people todiversify into other possible occupations were not suf-

Table 4. Reaction of local inhabitants to six possible management policy scenarios in Nanda Devi BiosphereReserve

Question: If there were dangers to the wildlife of the Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve deriving from the current life styles ofinhabitants living at the periphery of core zone, and it was necessary to take measures for their protection, what would bethe best solution for you?

Management Policy

Agree Disagree Don’t know

�2 PMales Females Males Females Males Females

Compensate the local farmers for a period of 30–50years with equivalent of net income fromfarms/livestock so as they could move away from thearea in the mean time to other occupations/places

496 367 256 401 19 114 15.26 � 0.01

Expropriation of farms and animals with special prices,higher than their market value, so that residentsgradually change occupation

507 136 265 567 0 29 76.85 � 0.01

Exchange of farms with suitable agricultural land inthe areas little away from core zone

495 261 250 417 26 54 26.90 � 0.01

Continuation of agriculture with traditional crops butat a reduced scale and compensated for the loss ofincome

701 713 28 0 42 19 1.076 � 0.3

Continuation of agriculture with alternate crops(medicinal and aromatic plants) with suitablemarketing infrastructure

496 362 0 162 275 208 14.33 � 0.01

Continue with the present system 163 396 567 290 41 36 38.96 � 0.01

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 173

ficient to keep them at an even pace with those livingelsewhere in the region.

Perception of development options. The managementplan of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve proposes ecode-velopment activities to reduce peoples’ constraints andimprove the local livelihoods. However, there seems tobe a wide gap between the perceptions of developmentby local people and the management authority. Themanagement action plan is heavy on ecorestoration,but locals feel that it is of no use to them as the speciesplanted by the state forest service are not preferredspecies of fodder and fuel and ecotourism plans are notable to generate the interest of tourists to provide viableeconomic returns to local entrepreneurs.

Respondents were asked to list the development op-tions for the region. Some of the most frequent re-sponses (improvement of livestock productivity, eco-tourism development, and supply of solar powerdevices at subsidized prices) are already in the ecode-velopment plans, but the local inhabitants are not sat-isfied with the speed of implementation (Table 6).Other frequent responses, such as allowing removal oftimber (dead trees) for economic benefit, allowing lo-cal institutions to make management decisions aboutthe natural resources, and allowing nontimber forestproduct exploitation for economic benefit, are not fa-vored by the management authority due to their con-

tradiction with existing laws, or in possible erosion ofthe authority of the existing management setup.

Perception of social and cultural effects and needs for worksand facilities. Respondents were asked it they feel theireconomic status was influenced by the biosphere re-serve. The inhabitants of villages where transhumanceis practiced are unanimous that their position wors-ened, but in villages now settled there seems to be someimprovement due to their ability to diversify produc-tion activities. Thus, in the overall study area the peoplefeel it worsened their status (Table 7). The reduction intourist flow seems to have a more drastic influence onvillages at the starting point of the trek, as they used toget maximum benefits, but most people in the regionfeel that interaction with tourists resulted in a changeof manners and customs and a loss of the traditionalvalue system. However, the younger generation seemsto feel ecotourism provides an opportunity to makenew friends and broadens their knowledge throughinteraction with tourists. Regarding the list of develop-ment works, every one seems to agree that a road is aprime requisite. Even people near to the existing roadfeel that it should be kept in usable condition the yearround, as frequent slides and slips cause disruptions forseveral days to months at a times. Small irrigation worksseem to be a current priority but the unsuitability ofsuch works for villages where agricultural fields are on

Table 5. Responses regarding on impacts of conservation policy and related interventions in Nanda DeviBiosphere Reservea

Impact% of totalresponses

Agricultural crops and fruit trees related impactsReduction in manure input trees related impacts reduction in area available for litter collection 2Reduction in manure input because of reduction in area available for grazing 98Reduction in manure input because of reduction in area available for cutting grasses and lopping fodder trees 5Damage due to wildlife pests 96Termination of possibility of expansion of farm 90

Livestock related impactsReduction in livestock holdings 98Low productivity because of imp-roper nutrition for animals 95Increase in cost of livestock feed 95Livestock depredation by wildlife 95

Forest/alpine pasture related impactsIncrease in time and labour involved in fuel wood collection 5Problems in getting timber for domestic needs 5Lack of provision for monetary benefits from timber in dead/diseased trees 90Termination f in come from wild medicinal plant resource base 96Reduction in availability of non-timber forest products other than medicinal plants 8

Tourism related impactsTermination of opportunities of income from tourism 99Loss of opportunities of interaction with the outside world 98Loss of other benefits (gifts from tourism) 98

aData in the columns include multiple listings of open-ended responses.

174 K. S. Rao and others

steep slopes is not fully understood. Fuel and fodder isbecoming scarce, and women, who face the tough taskof managing households and tending animals andfields, are more inclined to want such facilities devel-oped near their houses. They feel the current ecores-toration scheme does not meet their requirements, andthus afforestation is not one of their required develop-ment priorities. Market access to the local produce ison the list of works requested, but the respondents werenot unanimous about the mode, as some of the earlierattempts at cooperatives were not successful. Agricul-ture redevelopment requested by the local inhabitantsis not a priority of the management authority. Cross-tabulating the gender of the respondents with the re-sponses given about economic impacts indicates thatthere was no difference. However, the preferences ofmen are significantly different from those of womenwith respect to the impact of ecotourism on social andcultural aspects of life and works or facilities requiredfor the development of the region.

When asked for their reaction about ecotourism asoption to supplement their incomes, the younger gen-erations seem to be more enthusiastic about such pos-sibility. However, only about 40% of total respondentsfeel ecotourism could supplement their income (Table

8). Those who have seen the ability of the managementauthority in the development of infrastructure and pop-ularization of potential sites for ecotourism in thebuffer zone are skeptical. Among the occupationalgroups, the “other workers occupation group,” consist-ing of the self-employed, is enthusiastic about such apossibility. The agriculturists, except for those whohave a significant dependence on woolen handlooms,are not enthusiastic about, such possibilities, althoughthis may provide a wider market for local produce.Cross-tabulating the age group of the respondents(both males and females together) with the responsegiven about the possibility of ecotourism to supplementincome indicated that there is no difference at the 95%significance level. However, the responses showedhighly significant differences between the occupationalgroups.

Perception of effectiveness of existing administration andmanagement scheme. The management authority of thebiosphere reserve is facing the problem of coordinatingthe activities performed by other departments havinginterests and targets in the area that act autonomouslywithout the knowledge of the state forest service. Al-though most respondents agreed that one administra-tive authority is good, they preferred the existing mech-anism (Table 9).

Discussion

The need to link planning and evaluation is com-monly espoused in management and planning texts butis rarely applied in practice, at least in the fields ofconservation planning and management (Hockings1998). While management planning is a long-estab-lished core activity for most conservation managementagencies, the evaluation of management programs is inits infancy. Formal evaluations are becoming morecommon in relation to broad agency programs [e.g.,World Bank or International Monetary Fund (IMF)support for restructuring] but remains the exceptionfor individual protected areas or management plans. InIndia the Ministry of Environment and Forests, thenational authority concerned with forests, wildlife, andprotected area networks, and other agencies providingextramural funding to research activities request the listof potential agencies who can use the research findingsand forward copies of research reports, summaries, andrecommendations to them (e.g., State Forest Depart-ment, Biosphere Reserve Management Authority).However, use of such reports and recommendations inthe implementation of activities or modification ofmanagement plans by the Management Authority is notwidely known. Although focused attempts to determine

Table 6. People’s perceptions of options fordevelopment in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reservea

Development option% of totalresponses

Improvement in crop productionBy expanding cultivated area 2By adopting new technologies e.g., use of

fertilizers12

Improvement in margin of profitsBy cooperative marketing 10By governmental support in marketing of

local produce85

Enabling income from timber fromdead/diseased trees

96

Enabling income from nontimber productssuch as wild medicinal plants

96

Improvement in livestock productivity 45Enabling income from tourism 98Empowerment and improvement in managerial

capacity of local institutions80

Wages from afforestation works 40Supply of solar power devices at subsidized

prices60

Supply of improved spinning devices atsubsidized prices

25

Supply of improved bee-hives at subsidizedprices

25

aData in the column includes multiple listings of open-ended re-sponses.

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 175

the reasons were negligible, it is indicated that thescientific research generally fails to understand themanagement requirements and priorities. The recom-mendations are more on scientific debate rather thanpractical applications or only provides partial informa-tion needed and thus not useful for managers. Thebiosphere reserve management authority needed an-swers for mitigating conflicts with local people throughtheir actions, compatible with conservation goals andaims of achieving economic development. The re-search results of a project only provide them with re-sults of advantages of crossbred animals over localbreeds for milk production without taking account oftheir fodder and management requirements or effi-ciencies of some crop sequences over others in provid-ing economic benefits without taking account of totalresource and labor allocations in a village for the pro-duction to continue at optimum. There seems to be avoid in the present setup of system in understandingthe results of research projects and acting on them asrequired in management plans. Perhaps this could bedone by someone with experience in management andwho is able to convert the research results into possibleactions required for the management authority andadvise the researchers and funding agencies on thegaps that need to be filled (Lipscombe 1987).

In the context of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, theinvolvement of local inhabitants in management plan-

ning is absent, as is commonly found in other protectedareas (IUCN 1993, Singh and others 2000, Maikhuriand others 2000c). Although the people are consciousof conservation requirements and started the famousChipko movement (Shiva and Bandyopadhyay 1986),they now oppose the management authority. This maybe because the management authority failed to under-stand the local peoples’ aspirations and perceptions;the growing market forces influence and change socio-political situations, altering peoples’ life styles and thustheir demands on the natural resources; and the man-agement plans are not able to keep pace with therealities and ground level factual information. Socialresearch in protected area is expected to provide someinsights into the knowledge, aptitude, and perceptionsof local inhabitants and requirements to modify man-agement plans. The local people in Nanda Devi Bio-sphere Reserve always had the opportunity to expresstheir views to news media as the area was of interest dueto tourism, the Chipko movement, their current oppo-sition to the management authority, and the fact thatseveral research teams were studying their socioeco-nomic situations as part of their research. Perhaps thiswas the first time they had an opportunity to expresstheir aptitude and perceptions about management andrequirements of development in the region. The re-search findings regarding the knowledge of local peo-ple about the objectives of the biosphere reserve indi-

Table 7. Perception of economic impact, social and cultural effects, and need for public works and facilities

Response Males Females �2 P

A. Perception of economic impact of the biosphere reservea

Question: Was your economic status influenced by the biosphere reserve?Not influenced 25 35Improved 156 80Worsened 560 607Don’t know 30 10Total 771 732

B. Perception of social and cultural effects of the biosphere reservea

Question: If there is ecotourism development in your area, what do you thinkwill be the social and cultural effects on local society?Opportunity to make new friends 263 28 220.61 � 0.01Change in manners/customs 763 692 23.80 � 0.01Loss of traditional value system 678 701 30.39 � 0.01

C. Public works and facilities neededa

Question: What do you consider necessary for the development of yourcommunity?Roads 771 732Small irrigation works 396 469 24.67 � 0.01Fuel and fodder 136 535 467.14 � 0.01Market access for produce 579 147 455.13 � 0.01Agriculture redevelopment 172 263 37.30 � 0.01Afforestation 201 108 29.44 � 0.01Others 436 573 80.34 � 0.01

aData in the columns include multiple listings of open-ended responses.

176 K. S. Rao and others

cates, despite the high degree of awareness aboutconservation, they really do not recall the complete listof objectives of the reserve they inhabit. The reasonsmay be lack of an interpretation center in the area or atthe entrance of biosphere reserve; the managementauthority is at district headquarters away from the re-gion and their interaction with local inhabitants is min-imal; and the staff posted in the region to oversee thepolicing duties and inquire into complaints of localpeople regarding damage are not qualified and/or ableto provide reliable information to the general public.The most preferred answer, “protection of environ-ment in general,” being the catch word of every visitorcoming to the region and news media in general onlyindicates the exposure of local people is more frequentto such information rather than the actual objectives of

Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (Table 10). Throughthe progress reports (Kumar 1998) indicate the inter-actions with local people, the primary source beingvillage Panchayat meeting rather than the interactionmeeting with the Management Authority only confirmsthat the number of people participated in such inter-action meetings by the Management Authority wassmall.

The examination of the impact of biosphere reserveon the economic situation of people showed that mostpeople were influenced by a reduction of income. How-ever, such influences are more prominent in transhu-mance villages than settled villages, as the dependenceof people on animal husbandry, which uses resources inalpine pastures, is high. In villages that are currentlysettled, some respondents even indicated their eco-

Table 8. Reaction to ecotourism to supplement income

Agree Disagree Total

Males Females Males Females Males Females

Age groupa

�18–24 79 70 103 81 182 15125–34 80 80 124 128 204 20835–44 66 61 88 105 154 16645–64 62 49 72 84 134 133�65 37 19 60 55 97 74Total 324 279 447 453 771 732

Occupational groupb

Transhumant pastoralistOf currently transhumant village 163 nil 41 nil 204 nilOf currently settled village 25 nil nil nil 25 nil

Settled agriculturalistOf currently transhumant village 26 30 76 271 102 301Of currently settled village 197 165 129 247 326 412

Other occupationOf currently transhumant village 25 nil 15 8 40 8Of currently settled village 51 8 23 3 74 11

Total 487 203 284 529 771 732

a�2 � 6.546, 4 degrees of freedom for total respondents, P � 0.20.b�2 � 29.31, 5 degrees of freedom for total respondents, P � 0.01.

Table 9. Preference for administration and management scheme

Question: Do you believe that the objectives of the biosphere reserve are adequately achieved today with the existingadministration and management scheme, or you think they could be better achieved by only one authority formally involvingin the decision-making process all those having interests in the biosphere reserve, including the participation of localcommunities?Response Males Females

Existing scheme. Each government authority (Forest Department, Agricultural Department,Animal Husbandry Department, Horticulture Department, Tourism Department, etc.) willcontinue to plan, construct and provide works and facilities in the area within its ownjurisdiction independently.

602 600

Only one management authority responsible for all development plans and works in the area,with the participation of local communities in the decision making process.

169 132

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 177

nomic situations improved, indicating their ability toadjust to situations in a reasonable time of two decades.

The area was a major attraction for mountaineers,and adventure tourism used to provide significant in-come to local people, after 1962 the trade with China(Tibet) was stopped. From the social and cultural pointof view, the older generation feel interaction with tour-ists have negative influences, but social research indi-cates that with increased access to education, of theyounger generation of societies in marginal areas, suchas the present study region, showed tendencies of west-ernization (Mann and Mann 1989, Farooquee and Sa-mal 1993, Pant and others 1997). The preference of theyounger generation for ecotourism more for its poten-tial for making new friends rather than as an opportu-nity to earn livelihood indicates the coming genera-tions are looking for options (Maikhuri and others2000b) and if such options involve them leaving theirvillages permanently, this is also acceptable to them.The investigation into peoples’ attitudes towards sev-eral alternative management policies if their currentlivelihoods are dangerous to the core area supports thisobservation. The survey indicated the preference oflocal people to continue the present system of manage-ment rather than have one administrative authority,indicating the aptitude of local inhabitants to be onsafer side by supporting opportunistic agencies who areonly interested in attaining their targets rather thanintegrated development. This could be an indication ofa lack of faith in the administration, which advocates abottom-up approach but follows a top-down approachfor planning and implementing the development ofinfrastructure.

The gender difference in responses indicates thatmen are influenced more by economic options andwomen by living conditions. Such a situation seems tobe common elsewhere in the region (Rao and Saxena1994, 1996, Rao and others 1999) and in other places

(Conway 1997, Fleming 1991, Trakolis 2001). In thepresent study, the respondents preferred the existingadministrative and management scheme, although theybelieved a unified management authority is good. Onbeing asked to elaborate, people who handled matterswith the administrators and who knew how the systemworks, informed the research team that under thepresent scheme of targets to be achieved, every depart-ment or authority has push hard to get their schemescompleted or implemented and thus tends to providemore benefits to the villages. Even if an authority re-sponsible for some sector is not interested in the villageproposals, the flow of funds through developmentschemes is not hampered. If only one authority is cre-ated, the volume of funds may increase but their flow tovillages may not be as good as now. The local inhabit-ants of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve buffer zone cer-tainly do not want the present management authorityto have such unified management responsibilities, asthey already have differences with them.

Conclusions

The results revealed that investigation into local peo-ples’ aptitude and perceptions can produce useful in-formation that could be incorporated into the decision-making process leading to resolution of conflicts. Thefindings indicate that local residents do not have exten-sive knowledge of the biosphere reserve objectives. Pro-vision for an interpretation center by the managementauthority and more focused approaches by researchteams during their stay in the region could help toexpose local people to the objectives of the biospherereserve and promote the management authority. Theindication that the younger generation sees the optionsto move away from the region with cash compensationsand ecotourism as an opportunity to expand their cir-cle of friends could be taken as a sign of changing timesby the management authority, and if managementplans require such relocation could be thought withcare. As seen in other protected areas, local peoplewant participatory management rather than have theNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve management authoritymanage their resources. Gender plays an importantrole in perceptions; men tend to prefer economic op-portunities, and while women prefer improvements inliving conditions. An evaluation process attempted inthe present study indicates the need of such evaluationin management plans. Available management re-sources may preclude the adoption of such evaluation,but the objective of achieving economic benefit forinhabitants living in the biosphere reserves will only bepossible if the management plans also give consider-

Table 10. Objectives of management in Nanda DeviBiosphere Reservea

To conserve for present and future use, the diversity andintegrity of biotic communities of plants and animalswithin natural and seminatural ecosystems and tosafeguard the genetic diversity of species on which theircontinuing evolution depends.

To provide areas for ecological and environmentalresearch, including baseline studies, both within andadjacent to such reserves.

To provide facilities for education and training.To ensure involvement of local inhabitants in achieving

these objectives.

aAfter Mohan (1992).

178 K. S. Rao and others

able weight to livelihood development options in addi-tion to the current focus on ecoregeneration (Panwar1992). The study thus confirms that the conservation ofprotected landscapes depends upon maintainingwithin them a vigorous economy and social structureand a population that is sympathetic to the objectives ofconservation. It means working with people at all levels,especially those living and working in the area—thepeople most intimately affected by what happens to it.As recommended in the Lake District declaration (Fos-ter 1988), local governments should provide sufficientresources to implement sustainable development mod-els—“greenprints”—and promote a worldwide ex-change of information and experience on the manage-ment of such protected landscapes.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Director, G. B. Pant Institute of Hima-layan Environment and Development, for use of thefacilities and Ministry of Environment and Forests, Gov-ernment of India, for financial support. We thank Dr.D. Trakolis, Dr. Marc Hockings, and an anonymousreviewer for their critical comments and suggestions,which helped improve the contents and the presenta-tion of this paper. The views expressed here are thoseof authors only and not necessarily those of the orga-nizations with which they are affiliated.

Literature Cited

Alpert, P. 1996. Integrated conservation and developmentprojects. Bioscience 46:845–955.

Balodi, B. 1993. Expedition to Nanda Devi: floristic analysis. InThe Corps of Engineer’s Scientific and Ecological Expedi-tion, New Delhi, India.

Bisht, K. S. 2000. Monitoring of vegetation cover and land usein Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. The Indian Forester 126:664–673.

Buch-Hansen, N. 1997. Environment—a liability and an asset foreconomic development: some views on environmental protec-tion with economic development in Bhutan. International Jour-nal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 4:17–27.

Choudhury, D. 1998. Conservation by local communities innorth-east India. Pages 435–448 in A. Kothari, N. Pathak,R.V. Anuradha, and B. Taneja (eds.), Communities andconservation. Sage Publication, New Delhi, India.

Conway, K. 1997. Gender and culture influences on attitudestowards national park Punta Izoto, Honduras: an assess-ment for participatory conservation and management. MAthesis. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

Culen, G. R., H. R. Hunderford, A. N. Tomera, D. J. Sivek, M.Harrington, and M. Squillo. 1984. A comparison of envi-ronmental perceptions and behaviours of five discrete pop-ulations. Journal of Environmental Education 14:24–32.

DeBoer, W. F., and D. S. Baquete. 1998. Natural resource use,crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity ofthe Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. EnvironmentalConservation 25:208–218.

Department of Environment. 1987. The Nanda Devi Bio-sphere Reserve. Program document 3. Man and BiosphereReserve Program. Department of Environment. Govern-ment of India, Delhi, India.

Durbin, J. C., and J. A. Ralambo. 1994. The role of localpeople in the successful maintenance of protected areas inMadagascar. Environmental Conservation 21:115–120.

Farooquee, N. A., and P. K. Samal. 1993. Backwardness amyth—remoteness a reality. Hima-Paryavaran 5:7–9.

Fleming, M. 1991. The value of information contributed bythe public to conservation survey. Pages 148–155 in C.R.Margules and M.P. Austin (eds.), Nature conservation: costeffective biological survey and data analysis. CSIRO, Austra-lia.

Foster, M. J. (ed.). 1988. Protected landscapes: summary pro-ceedings of an international symposium, Lake District,United Kingdom. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Ghimire, K. B., and M. P. Pimbert (eds.). 1997. Social changeand conservation: environmental politics and impacts ofnational parks and protected areas. UNRSD & Earthscan,London, UK.

Hajra, P. K., and B. Balodi. 1995. Plant wealth of Nanda DeviBiosphere Reserve. Botanical Survey of India, Calcutta, India.

Hajra, P. K., and S. K. Jain. 1983. A contribution to the botanyof Nanda Devi National Park. Botanical Survey of India,Howrah, India.

Happold, D. C. D. 1995. The interaction between humans andmammals in Africa in relation to conservation: a review.Biodiversity and Conservation 4:395–414.

Heinen, J. T. 1996. Human behaviour, incentives and pro-tected area management. Conservation Biology 10:681–684.

Hockings, M. 1998. Evaluating management of protected ar-eas: integrating planning and evaluation. EnvironmentalManagement 22:337–345

Hough, J. L. 1988. Obstacles to effective management ofconflicts between national parks and surrounding humancommunities in the developing countries. EnvironmentalConservation 15:129–136.

Hough, J. L., and M. N. Sherpa. 1989. Bottom up vs. basicneeds: integrated conservation and development in theAnnapurna and Michiru Mountain conservation area ofNepal and Malawi. Ambio 18:434–441.

Indian Board of Wildlife. 1983. Eliciting public support forwildlife conservation. Report of the task force. Indian Boardfor Wildlife, Department of Environment, Government ofIndia, New Delhi, India.

IUCN. 1993. Parks for life. Report of the IVth world congresson national parks and protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Swit-zerland, 252 pp.

Kacher, L. 1976. Nanda Devi Sanctuary: A Naturalist’s report.Himalayan Journal 19:191–209.

Kacher, L. 1977. The Nanda Devi sanctuary. Journal of theBombay Natural History Society 75:868–887.

Kiss, A. 1990. Living with wildlife, wildlife resource manage-

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 179

ment with local participation in Africa. World Bank techni-cal paper 130. World Bank, Washington DC.

Kothari, A., P. Pande, S. Singh, and D. Variava. 1989. Man-agement of national parks and sanctuaries in India. IndianInstitute of Public Administration, New Delhi, India.

Kumar, R. 1998. Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. Pages 25–29in R. K. Maikhuri, K. S. Rao, and R. K. Rai (eds.), Biospherereserves and management in India. Himavikas occasionalpublication No. 12. G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Envi-ronment and Development, Kosi- Katarmal, Almora, India.

Lamba, B. S. 1987. Fauna of Nanda Devi National Park. Zoo-logical Survey of India, Calcutta, India.

Lipscombe, N. R. 1987. Park management planning: a guideto the writing of management plans. Johnstone Centre ofParks and Recreation Management, Albury.

Lucas, P. H. C. 1992. Protected landscapes: a guide for policy-makers and planners. Chapman & Hall, London.

MacKinnon, J. R., K. MacKinnon, G. Child, and J. Thorsell.1986. Managing protected areas in the tropics. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.

Maikhuri, R. K., K. S. Rao, and K. G. Saxena. 1996. Traditionalcrop diversity for sustainable development of central Hima-laya. International Journal of Sustainable Development and WorldEcology 2:8–31.

Maikhuri, R. K., K. S. Rao, and R. K. Rai (eds.). 1998. Biospherereserves and management in India. Himavikas occasional pub-lication No.12. G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environmentand Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora, India.

Maikhuri, R. K., S. Nautiyal, U. Rana, S. Tiwari, K. S. Rao, andK. G. Saxena. 2000a. Garhwal Himalaya: Nanda Devi Bio-sphere Reserve buffer zone. Pages 217–324 in P. S. Ra-makrishnan, U. M. Chandrashekhara, C. Elouard, C. Z.Guilmoto, R. K. Maikhuri, K. S. Rao, S. Sankar, and K. G.Saxena (eds.), Mountain Biodiversity, Land Use Dynamics,and Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Oxford and IBHPublishing, New Delhi, India.

Maikhuri, R. K., U. Rana, K. S. Rao, S. Nautiyal, and K. G.Saxena. 2000b. Promoting ecotourism in the buffer zoneareas of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve: an option to resolvepeople–policy conflict. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology 7:333–342.

Maikhuri, R. K., S. Nautiyal, K. S. Rao, K. Chandrasekhar, R.Gavali, and K. G. Saxena. 2000c. Analysis and resolution ofprotected area people conflicts in Nanda Devi BiosphereReserve. Environmental Conservation 27:43–53.

Maikhuri, R. K., S. Nautiyal, K. S. Rao, and K. G. Saxena. 2001.Conservation policy–people conflicts: a case study fromNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve (a World Heritage site),India. Forest Policy and Economics 2:357–367.

Mann, R. S., and K. Mann. 1989. Tribal cultures and change.Mittal Publications, New Delhi, India, 285 pp.

McNeely, J. A. 1988. Economics and biological diversity: de-veloping and using economic incentives to conserve biolog-ical diversity. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Mehta, J. N., and S. R. Kellert. 1998. Local attitudes towardscommunity-based conservation policy and programmes inNepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun conservation area.Environmental Conservation 25:320–333.

Mohan, D. 1992. Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve—manage-ment plan. Wildlife Preservation Organization, UttarPradesh, India.

Mukherjee, N. 1995. Participatory rural appraisal and ques-tionnaire survey—comparative fields experience and meth-odological innovations. Concept Publishing Company, NewDelhi, India.

Nautiyal, S. 1998. Ecosystem function of buffer zone villages ofNanda Devi Biosphere Reserve. PhD thesis. H. N. B. Garh-wal University, Srinager (Garhwal), India.

Nepal, S. K., and K. E. Weber. 1995. Prospects for co-exis-tence: wildlife and local people. Ambio 24:238–245.

Pant, R., D. S. Rawat, and P. K. Samal. 1997. The changingscenario of polyandry culture. Man in India 77:345–353.

Panwar, H. S. 1992. Ecodevelopment: an integrated approachto sustainable development for people and protected areasin India. Paper presented at the IVth World Congress onNational Parks, Caracas, Venezuela.

Papageorgiou, K. 2001. A combined park management frame-work based on regulatory and behavioral strategies: use ofvisitors’ knowledge to assess effectiveness. EnvironmentalManagement 28:61–73.

Rai, R. K. 1998. Biosphere Reserve: concept, characteristics,functions and Management. Pages 245–253 in R. K.Maikhuri, K. S. Rao, and R. K. Rai (eds.), Biosphere reservesand management in India. Himavikas occasional publica-tion No. 12. G. B. Pant Institute of Himalayan Environmentand Development, Kosi-Katarmal, Almora, India.

Ramakrishnan, P. S., A. N. Purohit, K. G. Saxena, K. S. Rao,and R. K. Maikhuri (eds.). 1996. Conservation and manage-ment of biological resources in Himalaya. Oxford and IBHPublishing, New Delhi, India.

Rao, K. S., and K. G. Saxena. 1994. Sustainable developmentand rehabilitation of degraded village lands in Himalaya.Bisen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh, Dehra Dun, India.

Rao, K. S., and K. G. Saxena. 1996. Minor forest product’smanagement: Problems and prospects in remote high alti-tude villages of central Himalaya. International Journal ofSustainable Development and World Ecology 3:60–70.

Rao, K. S., R. K. Maikhuri, and K. G. Saxena. 1999. Participa-tory approach to rehabilitation of degraded forestlands: acase study in a high altitude village in Indian Himalaya.International Tree Crops Journal 10:1–17.

Rao, K. S., S. Nautiyal, R. K. Maikhuri, and K. G. Saxena. 2000.Reserve management vs. people in Nanda Devi BiosphereReserve (NDBR), India: an analysis of conflicts. MountainResearch and Development. 20:320–323.

Rao, K. S., R. K. Maikhuri, S. Nautiyal, and K. G. Saxena. 2002.Crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife: a casestudy from Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Journal ofEnvironmental Management (in press).

Reed, T. M. 1978. A contribution to the ornithology of theRishi Ganga valley and the Nanda Devi Sanctuary. Journal ofthe Bombay Natural History Society 76:275–282.

Rodgers, W. A., and H. S. Panwar. 1988. Planning a wildlifeprotected area network in India. Wildlife Institute of India,Dehradun, India.

Sahai, B., and M. M. Kimothi. 1996. Remote sensing for

180 K. S. Rao and others

surveying, mapping and monitoring of conservation areasin Himalaya. Pages 253–258 in P. S. Ramakrishnan, A. N.Purohit, K. G. Saxena, K. S. Rao and R. K. Maikhuri (eds.),Conservation and Management of Biological Resources inHimalaya. Oxford and IBH Publishing Company (Pvt) Lim-ited, New Delhi, India.

Samant, S. S. 1993. Diversity and status of plants in NandaDevi Biosphere Reserve. The Corps of Engineer’s scientificand ecological expedition, New Delhi, India.

Semwal, R. L., S. Nautiyal, K. S. Rao, R. K. Maikhuri, and B. S.Bhandari. 1999. Structure of forests under community con-servation: a preliminary study of Jardhar village initiative inGarhwal Himalaya. ENVIS Bulletin—Himalayan Ecology andDevelopment 7:16–27.

Sewell, W. R. W. 1973. Broadening the approach to evaluationin resources management decision making. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 1:33–60.

Sherpa, M. N. 1987. People, park problems and challenges inthe Annapurna conservation area in Nepal. The King Ma-hendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Shiva, V., and J. Bandyopadhyay. 1986. The evolution, struc-ture and impact of the Chipko movement. Mountain Re-search and Development 6:133–142.

Silori, C. S., and R. Badola. 1998. Sustainable development ofdependent population in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve.Pages 117–128 in R. K. Maikhuri, K. S. Rao, and R. K. Rai,(eds.), Biosphere reserves and management in India. Hi-mavikas occasional publication No. 12. G.B. Pant Instituteof Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi-Katar-mal, Almora, India.

Singh, S., V. Sankaran, H. Mander, and S. Worah. 2000.Strengthening conservation cultures: local communitiesand biodiversity conservation. Man and Biosphere Pro-gram, United Nations Educational, Scientific and CulturalOrganization. Paris.

Trakolis, D. 2001. Local people’s perceptions of planning andmanagement issues in Prespes Lakes National Park, Greece.Journal of Environmental Management 61:227–241.

Vandergast, P. 1996. Property rights in protected areas: obsta-cles to community involvement as a solution in Thailand.Environmental Conservation 23:259–268.

Wells, M., and K. Brandon. 1992. People and park: linkingprotected area management with local communities. WorldBank/WWF/USAID, Washington, DC.

White, G. F. 1966. Formation and role of public attitudes. Pages105–109 in H. Jarrett (ed.), Environmental quality in a grow-ing economy. John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Local Peoples and Biosphere Planning 181