Local Institutions and Forest Conservation Outcomes in the Indian State of Odisha: A Comparative Analysis of the Performance of Joint Forest Management and Community Forest Management
Rupesh Kumar Moharana et al.
Abstract
This study assesses the performance of two competing local institutions like community forest management (CFM) and joint forest management (JFM) on the ecological outcome (forest growth) in the Keonjhar district of the Indian state of Odisha. Specifically, the present study attempts to undertake a comparative analysis of the performance of JFM and CFM and assess their effects on forest conservation outcomes. Primary and secondary data have been used to analyze the determinants of differences in forest conservation outcomes. The primary data from 40 randomly selected sampled forest community institutions (20 each from CFM and JFM communities) are analyzed using an ordered logit model. The results indicate that the CFM communities seem to be performing well compared to their counterpart JFM communities concerning forest growth. In addition, local communities are more effectively managing forests as their size is larger and the resources available are scarce. The construction of roads to improve transport and communication has a detrimental impact on forest growth. The presence of temple land and community located far away from the forest department office are also likely to promote better forest growth. Forest protection committees formed by the local communities are more likely to manage forests effectively than those formed by the forest department. Hence, the more degraded reserved forest may be allotted to well‐organized self‐initiated CFM communities to achieve both forest conservation objectives and promote local livelihoods.
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
| M · momentum | 0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03 |
| R · text relevance † | 0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20 |
† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.