R e s u l t s | 33

5. Results
5.1 Analysis of socio-economic status, land and resource use pattern of households in Similipal forest 5.1.1 Demographic and socio-economic profile of the villages There were total of 1418 households in the 30 study villages. The total population size was 8212 of which 3827 (53%) were men and 2161 (47%) women. The average family size varied between 3.1-11.2 persons per household with the lowest in village Nawana and highest in village Benipur (Table 4). The sex ratio (females/thousand males) ranged between 189-1214, with the lowest in village Bhudabalanga and highest in Langighasara (Table 4). This difference can be attributed to lack of employment, which has led to migration of the men to other areas in search of jobs. The landholdings of the 30 villages were 545.9 ha. Occupation wise, majority of the household were cultivators with the highest number of cultivators in Gurguria and lowest in Yamunagard (Table 4). Makabadi had the highest land under the cultivation with 28.4 ha and Balarampur comes next with 26.3 ha (Table 4). Among the crop being cultivated, paddy was the major crop in this area and other corps was vegetables and spices. Out of the total household of the villages, 143 (10%) households were selected for detailed study from 2007 to 2008. The average household size ranged from 3 to 22 (Table 4). 5.1.2 Age and gender of the respondents The survey was carried out by dividing the respondents into three age categories: young 2039, middle aged 40-59 and elderly 60+. A total of 143 people were surveyed. Out of 143 respondents of the survey, 91 were male and 52 were female. Most of the respondents were between 20-40 yrs (Table 5). The oldest respondent was aged 86.

R e s u l t s | 34

Table 4: Demographic and occupational characteristics of study villages.

Villages Location (Buffer/ Core/ Periphery) Buffer Buffer Buffer Core Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Core Core Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Core Total households Total population Average family size Male Female Sex ratio (females per thousand males) 773 989 1066 1123 915 414 924 900 915 189 1046 768 1000 926 948 982 992 917 888 919 828 1117 931 1214 991 842 875 825 649 928 873 Cultivators Cultivated area (hectare) 9.3 18.6 21.9 6.9 26.3 24.3 20.7 22.7 26.3 23.9 13.8 10.9 15.4 25.9 20.3 12.2 21.9 23.9 12.6 13.8 17.8 25.1 15.4 10.9 28.4 24.3 16.2 8.9 16.6 10.9 545.9

Asanbani Astakumar Badega Bakua Balarampur Bareipani Barignbada Barsia Benipur Bhudabalanga Gadasahi Gadsimilipal Gurguria Jenabil Kabataghai Kandibil Kasira Kolha Koljhari Kudaghuta Kukurbuka Kumari Kusumi Langighasara Makabadi Nawana Nigirda Saruda Uski Yamunagard Total

34 50 18 41 65 113 45 72 10 30 14 55 128 25 55 85 51 47 26 26 55 57 62 22 45 57 15 40 57 18 1418

156 551 188 259 226 570 229 380 226 113 133 290 540 260 298 446 245 324 270 190 371 523 280 93 225 175 60 188 216 187 8212

4.6 11 10.4 6.3 3.5 5 5.1 5.3 22.6 3.8 9.5 5.3 4.2 10.4 5.4 5.2 4.8 6.9 10.4 7.3 6.7 9.2 4.5 4.2 5 3.1 4 4.7 3.8 10.4 5.8

88 277 91 122 118 403 119 200 118 95 65 164 270 135 153 225 123 169 143 99 203 247 145 42 113 95 32 103 131 97 4385

68 274 97 137 108 167 110 180 108 18 68 126 270 125 145 221 122 155 127 91 168 276 135 51 112 80 28 85 85 90 3827

87 154 54 36 66 100 70 87 78 78 45 85 211 42 36 54 64 49 45 65 122 64 56 48 49 68 36 72 110 30 2161

(Source: Data collected from the V. A. O. office, panchayats and primary health centers of the respective villages).

R e s u l t s | 35

Table 5: The gender and age classes of respondents. Gender 20-39 54 32 86 Age 40-59 23 12 35 60 14 8 22

Male Female Total

5.1.3 Educational levels of local communities Out of 143 respondents surveyed, 38% of those interviewed were literate and 62% were illiterate, because the road network and the educational facilities were very poor in these areas. Among the literate, 26% were men and 12% were women. Fig. 7 shows the level of education of respondents interviewed in Similipal. In all the literate respondents 22% were at primary school level, 17% were at high school level and 6% were at higher secondary level. None of those interviewed had attended University (Fig. 7). There were more women than men that were illiterate.

Figure 7: Educational status of the respondents (Source: Data collected from the V. A. O. office, panchayats).

R e s u l t s | 36

5.1.4 Occupation and income Most of the households (59%) were involved in agriculture. About 42 (29%) households worked as small holdings cultivators, wage labor and collected NTFPs from the forest because they have less land holdings which do not support them off season. During summer and off season they collect NTFPs from the forests, and do labor work, 4% were selfemployed in small businesses and government jobs and 8% were land less people who were wage labor in the urban centers or in nearby cities (Table 6, Fig. 8).

Figure 8: Occupational status of the respondents.

5.1.5 Income classes The household economy in the rural society depends on the income derived from different sources. Table 6 describes the income of respondents from various sources, including cultivation, NTFPs, daily wages etc. The majorities of the respondents (81%) were from the low-income classes and earned less than one lakh per year, and 48% earned less than Rs. 50,000- per year (Table 6). Fewer (19%) earned more than one lakh per annum (Table 6). The majority of those earning less than Rs. 50,000- per year were households engaged in cultivation, NTFPs collection, daily wage labor and a combination of these (Table 6).

R e s u l t s | 37

Table 6: Annual income of the respondents of the studied households. Occupation <50,000 Agricultural cultivator NTFPs collector Agriculture and NTFPs collectors Daily wages Daily wages and NTFPs collectors Agriculture and wages Agriculture and Forest Department Agriculture and Business Service Total 17 12 12 11 4 13 0 0 0 69 (48%) Annual income 50,000100,000 46 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 (33%) Total 100,000 + 21 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 27 (19%) 84 (58) 12 (8) 13 (9) 11 (8) 4(3) 13 (9) 4 (3) 1 1 143

5.1.6 Livestock population and its impacts A majority of 1295 among the 1418 households in the region owned livestock. Since the households are mostly agriculturists, livestock are a source of farm labor, capital asset and a source of meat and milk. The local households owned cattle, buffalo, sheep and goat. In the villages of Saruda and Nigirda 100% of household owns livestock while the village Gurguria fewer households (51%) own livestock (Table 7). The 1418 households owned a total of 10,522 livestock, out of which 51% were cattle, 26% buffalo and 21% goat. A household owned an average of 9.27 livestock (Table 7, Source: Data collected from the V. A. O. office, panchayats). The average number of animals/household varied between 2.8-47.6 with the lowest in village Saruda and highest in village Benipur (Table 7). Use of forest biomass Fodder and fuel-wood are the two most heavily exploited forest products in India (Davidar et al., 2010). We observed that fuel-wood is harvested on a daily basis. In all the 143 household of the surveyed study villages, 100% of the families collected fuel-wood either as the chief source of fuel for cooking and heating in winter or for selling in nearby market. Annually a

R e s u l t s | 38

total of 59, 9330 kg of wood or about 600 tons yr -1, was extracted from the forest by the 143 households, of which 21, 2430 kg (35%) of fuel-wood was used for household needs, and 31,7280 kg (53%) of fuel-wood was sold (Table 8).
Table 7: Ownership of livestock among the households surveyed in the 30 villages.
Village Total households surveyed 34 50 18 41 65 113 45 72 10 30 14 55 128 25 55 85 51 47 26 26 55 57 62 22 45 57 15 40 57 18 1418 Livestock ownership (%) 30 (88) 49 (98) 12 (67) 37 (90) 55 (85) 104 (92) 32 (71) 67 (93) 6 (60) 27 (90) 12 (86) 50 (91) 65 (51) 22 (88) 50 (91) 60 (71) 44 (86) 35 (74) 23 (88) 14 (54) 49 (89) 54 (95) 45 (73) 15 (68) 34 (76) 49 (86) 15 (100) 40 (100) 45 (79) 15 (83) Cow Goat Buffalo Sheep Total livestock population 254 500 293 159 427 644 235 517 476 297 155 681 503 321 520 474 428 341 150 366 374 418 314 106 320 453 156 112 373 155 10522 Average number of animals/ household 7.5 10.0 16.3 3.9 6.6 5.7 5.2 7.2 47.6 9.9 11.1 12.4 3.9 12.8 9.5 5.6 8.4 7.3 5.8 14.1 6.8 7.3 5.1 4.8 7.1 7.9 10.4 2.8 6.5 8.6 9.27

Asanbani Astakumar Badega Bakua Balarampur Bareipani Barignbada Barsia Benipur Bhudabalanga Gadasahi Gadsimilipal Gurguria Jenabil kabataghai Kandibil Kasira Kolha Koljhari Kudaghuta Kukurbuka Kumari Kusumi Langighasara Makabadi Nawana Nigirda Saruda Uski Yamunagard Total

145 256 159 83 234 308 112 286 260 145 78 349 246 152 223 228 204 144 75 195 200 170 179 70 167 228 85 66 212 78 5337

0 27 0 76 0 30 123 19 216 0 77 30 208 169 292 190 185 25 0 0 19 248 135 32 11 15 0 0 0 77 2204

109 181 134 0 193 306 0 212 0 152 0 220 16 0 3 24 39 122 75 171 155 0 0 2 142 210 71 46 161 0 2744

0 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 33 0 2 32 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 237

(Source: Data collected from the V. A. O. office, panchayats)

R e s u l t s | 39

Table 8: Data on biomass harvest and use by the surveyed households.

Villages Total households No. of households surveyed 2 9 3 6 4 11 3 5 5 3 2 10 7 7 5 4 3 6 3 3 7 8 4 3 4 3 2 5 3 3 143 No. collecting fuel-wood Total fuel-wood collected (kg yr-1) 5840 37960 13140 24090 21900 47450 13140 21900 18250 12045 12410 47450 28105 21900 25550 18250 12775 23725 15330 12775 21900 29200 15330 12775 13870 16425 10950 20075 10220 14600 599330 Quantity of wood sold (kg yr-1) 0 22080 7680 19200 8640 24000 7200 14400 9600 6240 7200 19200 16800 8640 4800 14400 7680 14400 6240 9600 14400 14400 10560 12000 3840 10560 5760 12480 2400 2880 317280 Quantity used for domestic purposes (kg yr-1) 3650 14600 4380 8760 5840 19345 4745 6205 7300 4015 2555 14600 10950 10950 7300 5475 3650 9125 4015 4380 8760 12045 6205 4380 5110 5110 3285 7665 4380 3650 212430 No. collecting fodder from forest 0 2 0 2 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 2 3 0 1 2 3 3 4 3 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 38 Quantity of fodder (kg yr-1)

Asanbani Astakumar Badega Bakua Balarampur Bareipani Barignbada Barsia Benipur Bhudabalanga Gadasahi Gadsimilipal Gurguria Jenabil Kabataghai Kandibil Kasira Kolha Koljhari Kudaghuta Kukurbuka Kumari Kusumi Langighasara Makabadi Nawana Nigirda Saruda Uski Yamunagard Total

34 50 18 41 65 113 45 72 10 30 14 55 128 25 55 85 51 47 26 26 55 57 62 22 45 57 15 40 57 18 1418

2 9 3 6 4 11 3 5 5 3 2 10 7 7 5 4 3 6 3 3 7 8 4 3 4 3 2 5 3 3 143

0 2920 0 2555 0 6205 0 1095 0 4015 0 0 0 2555 3650 0 1825 3650 1825 6570 5475 3650 1825 0 0 0 1460 2190 0 0 51465

Table 9: Daily harvesting of biomass such as fuel-wood and fodder for domestic purposes. Biomass use and sources Requirement per household Forest sources Other sources (agricultural residues) Fuel-wood (kg /day) 4.04 4.04 0 Fodder (kg/day) 3.7 1.8 1.9 Total Biomass (kg/day) 7.7 5.8 1.9

R e s u l t s | 40

The average harvesting of fuel-wood per household use was 1456 kg, whereas 2341 kg was collected for sale, indicating that about 1.6 times more fuel-wood was collected if for sale than for household sustenance. Since most of the households own livestock, 105 households graze their animals in Similipal forests and 38 collected fodder from the forest to feed their livestock. A total of 51,465 kg of fodder (or about 50 tons yr -1) was extracted by 38 households from the forest in a year (Table 8). Fodder is also obtained from the other sources such as agricultural residues (Table 9). Our survey indicates that each household uses almost 4 kg of fuel-wood a day for cooking and other purpose and 3.7 kg of fodder for livestock feeding. The total biomass requirement of a household is almost 7.7 kg, of which about 5.8 kg comes from forest (Table 9). Using a logistic regression, I tested whether those that sold fuel-wood were more likely to have lower income levels, be older, be illiterate and be less likely to own land. The result of the logistic regression on the variables associated with the likelihood of selling fuel-wood is significant overall (Table 10).
Table 10: The logistic regression between likelihood of selling fuel-wood to annual income, age, education (male), hectares of land owned, total livestock owned, location in core or buffer. Predictor variables Constant Annual income Age Education male Land owned (hectare ) Total livestock Location (core-buffer) Distance to forest Coefficient 2.4026 -1.50E-05 -0.0346 0.00695 0.38121 -0.0305 -0.44264 0.01258 Std. Error 0.86332 7.79E-06 0.01483 0.43585 0.22857 0.03754 0.5207 0.2218 Coeff./SE 2.78 -1.92 -2.33 0.02 1.67 -0.81 -0.85 0.06 P Value 0.0054 0.0545 0.0196 0.9873 0.0953 0.4165 0.3953 0.9548

The only two variables that were significantly but negatively associated with the likelihood of selling fuel-wood were income and age. This indicates that poorer and younger people were

R e s u l t s | 41

more likely to be wood sellers (Table 10). Variables such as male illiteracy (education male), livestock owned, location in the core zone or buffer zone and distance to forest were not associated with likelihood of selling wood (Table 10). 5.1.7 Resource collection As mentioned in the earlier section, all the surveyed households collected resources from the Similipal Tiger Reserve. Collection of fuel-wood from forests requires at least 2 to 4 hours of work per day in the study areas. The villagers travel 0.5-3 km in the forest every day to collect fuel-wood and fodder from the forest. Of the total households surveyed, all the household collected wood for their own use and 82 household of the 143 collected fuel-wood to sell in the market (Table 11). Our survey indicates that the households, who collected fuelwood for sale, collected about 1.6 times more wood than those that collected for their own household use. 5.1.7.1 Harvesting pressure as a function of distance from the forest boundary There was no significant correlation between village size and distance to forest boundary indicating that village size was independent from access to the forest (r = 0.06, ns). There was a no relationship between distance from the forest boundary and the number of households collecting fuel-wood (r = 0.02, p = 0.08). There was no relationship between fodder collection and distance to forest boundary (r = 0.13, ns). The proportion of fuel-wood collectors was significantly negatively correlated with the village population size (r = 0.24, p = 0.003) but fodder collectors were significantly positively correlated with village population size (r = 0.31, p = 0.001). This finding suggests that as the village size increases, fuel-wood collection decreases as a source of livelihood whereas the opposite is the case with fodder collection, which increases with village size.

R e s u l t s | 42

Table 11: Proportion of resource harvesters in each village.

Village Total household surveyed 2 9 3 6 4 11 3 5 5 3 2 10 7 7 29 4 3 6 3 3 7 8 4 3 4 3 2 5 3 3 Total population Distance to forest boundary (km) 2.5 0.3 0.3 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.6 2.8 1.7 2.5 2 0.5 0.1 0.75 1.5 0.5 1.8 1.2 1.5 2.8 1.3 1.2 1 1.8 2.8 3 0.2 0.5 0.5 Forest fuelwood collectors for domestic use (%) 2 (6) 9 (18) 3 (17) 6 (15) 4 (6) 11(8) 3 (7) 5 (7) 5 (50) 3 (10) 2 (14) 10 (18) 7 (5) 7 (28) 5 (9) 4 (5) 3 (6) 6(13) 3 (12) 3 (12) 7 (13) 8 (14) 4 (6) 3 (14) 4 (9) 3 (5) 2 (13) 5 (13) 3 (5) 3 (17) Fuelwood sellers (%) 0 4 (8) 1 (6) 4 (10) 2 (3) 7 (6) 2 (4) 2 (3) 2 (20) 2 (7) 2 (14) 5 (9) 3 (2) 3 (12) 4(7) 4 (5) 3 (6) 2 (4) 1 (4) 3 (12) 5 (9) 5 (9) 4 (6) 3 (14) 1 (2) 3 (5) 1 (7) 5 (13) 1 (2) 1 (6) Fodder collectors (%) 0 2 (4) 0 2 (5) 0 5 (4) 0 1 (1) 0 3 (10) 0 0 2 (2) 3 (12) 0 0 1 (2) 3 (6) 2 (8) 3 (12) 4 (7) 3 (5) 1 (2) 0 0 0 1 (7) 2 (5) 0 0

Asanbani Astakumar Baghdega Bakua Balarampur Bareipani Barignbada Barsia Benipur Bhudabalanga Gadasahi Gadsimilipal Gurguria Jenabil Kabataghai Kandibil Kasira Kolha Koljhari Kudaghuta Kukurbuka Kumari Kusumi Langighasara Makabadi Nawana Nigirda Saruda Uski Yamunagard

7 63 17 28 27 52 17 29 32 21 22 88 33 39 29 23 18 34 20 20 32 34 23 12 21 16 8 35 17 12

5.1.8 Economy of fuel-wood All the surveyed household 143 collected wood for their own use and for sale. Of these 51 collected wood for their own use, and the total quantity collected was approximately 1500 kg per week, 92 collected almost 9400 kg for sale and their own use per week. The households that collected wood for sale collected 1.6 times quantity of those that collected only for their

R e s u l t s | 43

own use. The market value of the wood was Rs. 2 per kg and the market value of a head load which approximately weighing 50-60 kg work out to be Rs.100-120, whereas it is sold by the collectors for Rs. 50-60 (Table 12).
Table 12: Estimates of biomass collected from the forest and sold in market over a year. Forest product collected Total harvesting households Total biomass collected per day (mean SD) 4.040.8 3.7 1 Economic value at market value of Rs. 2 per kg per day 3284 0 Quantity used for domestic purposes (kg) per day 582 0 Quantity sold (kg) per week Economic value at sale value (Rs 2 per kg) 13220 0

Fuel-wood Fodder

143 38

6610 0

R e s u l t s | 44

5.2 Impacts of human disturbances on vegetation structure of Similipal Tiger Reserve 5.2.1 Species richness, species diversity and basal area A total of 90 species of trees, shrubs and lianas belonging to 41 different families were identified in the disturbed and undisturbed sites. A total of 86 species from 39 families were recorded in the undisturbed sites and 70 species from 36 families in the disturbed sites (Table 13 & 14). The number of shrub species was much higher in the disturbed sites. Stem density (ha-1), species diversity as measured by the Shannon-Wiener index, basal area (m ha-1) and was lower in disturbed sites as compared to the undisturbed sites (Table 14).
Table 13: Comparison of species richness of trees, shrubs and lianas in the disturbed and undisturbed plots. Life Form Trees Shrubs Lianas Total Species richness Disturbed Undisturbed 57 73 7 6 6 7 70 86 Total 76 7 7 90

Table 14: Comparison of species richness and diversity, stem density (ha-1) and basal area (m2ha-1) in disturbed and undisturbed plots (meanSEM). Parameters Species richness No. of families Species diversity (Shannon-Weiner index) Stem density ha-1 Basal area (m ha-1) Disturbed (8 ha) 70 36 1.69 876110 5520 Undisturbed (8 ha) 86 39 2.28 1472191 7211 t =test p

t = 2.69 t = 8.51

p = 0.0173 p = 0.0001

Fifty five tree species were common to both plots. Species diversity was higher in the undisturbed (Shannon-Wiener index = 2.28) compared with the disturbed plots (ShannonWiener index = 1.69). Stem density was significantly higher in the undisturbed plots which had an average of 1472 stems ha-1 compared with 876 stems ha-1 in the disturbed plots (Paired Ttest, t = 2.60, df = 7, p = 0.002). The average basal area was significantly higher in the

R e s u l t s | 45

undisturbed plots 71 m ha -1 compared with 55 m ha-1 in the disturbed plots (Paired T test = 8.29, df = 7, p < 0.0001) (Table 14). Twenty species recorded in undisturbed sites were not recorded in the disturbed sites but 4 species recorded in the disturbed sites were absent in undisturbed sites (Appendix 1). The stem densities of different species varied among sites and in every site Shorea robusta was dominant. Stem densities (Mann Whitney U test = 5.33, p = 0.02), and basal area (Mann Whitney U test = 5.39, p = 0.02) were significantly higher in the core zone compared with the buffer zone. Tree density and basal area in the disturbed sites was lower than in the undisturbed sites (Table 15). This finding suggests that degradation is higher near the villages where human impact is greater.
Table 15: Comparison of human impact in disturbed (D) and undisturbed (UD) plots in the eight sites.

Site

Species richness D UD 23 27 22 25 36 37 28 37

Stem density ha-1 D 635 609 652 528 1133 1116 955 1380 UD 778 1300 760 1296 2048 2165 1528 1901

Basal area (m2 ha-1) D 20.25 22.76 25.99 20.61 48.62 99.43 56.78 108.47 UD 33.52 47.14 45.7 47.94 81.59 112.66 83.52 123.34

Gurguria Nawana Makabadi Balarampr Bakua Yamunagard Kabataghi Jenabil

18 18 16 17 22 22 20 27

5.2.2 Uses of plant parts for different purposes Out of 90 species recorded in study regions, 87 species were used for fuel-wood (Table 16). Other products extracted were for food, base for country alcohol, resins, tendu leaves and others. Some species like Shorea robusta, Madhuca indica, Bauhinia vahli yielded more than one product: fuel-wood, resins, leaves, chew stick, rope and oil. Madhuca indica fruits were used for making country liquor (Table 18).

R e s u l t s | 46

5.2.3 Extraction pressure of biomass The mean monthly extraction pressure was 6%, and ranged from 1% in Jenabil to 11% in Gurguria (Table 17). This shows that on average 6% of all trees had new cuttings every month and most of the cases the whole plant was removed. The buffer zone villages like Gurguria, Makabadi, Nawana and Balarampur had higher levels of extraction pressure than core areas villages. There was significant difference in the mean monthly extraction pressure between the core zone and buffer zone villages (Wilcoxon signed rank test: p < 0.02). The village size was negatively correlated with stem densities of each plot (r = 0.23, p < 0.05) indicating that plots closer to larger villages have lower stem densities. This suggests that there is increasing pressure on forests with increasing village size.
Table 16: Number of species harvested for different purposes by the local people. Plant parts used Wood Fruit Seed Leaves Bark Flower Stem Number of species 87 10 6 3 3 4 4 Uses Fuel-wood and implements Food Oil and medicine Plates, fodder, mat, local beedi Rope and medicine food and medicine chew stick and rope

Table 17: The mean monthly extraction pressure and total population of villages. Village Gurguria Nawana Makabadi Balarampur Bakua Yamunagard Kabatagai Jenabil N 547 216 225 226 259 192 187 260 Core/Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Buffer Core Core Core Core Stem density (ha-1) 635 609 652 528 1133 1116 955 1380 Mean extraction pressure (%) 11.06 9.88 10.4 9.56 1.99 1.77 2.01 1.29

R e s u l t s | 47

The mean monthly extraction pressure was positively correlated with village size (r = 0.43, p < 0.05). This finding illustrates that the extraction pressure increases as the size of the village and thereby leading to deforestation over time due to increasing pressure from villages.
Table 18: List of the species recorded in disturbed and undisturbed sites, plant part harvested and uses.

Name Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr. Alangium salviifolium (L. f.) Albizia procera (Roxb.) Anogeissus latifolia (Roxb. ex DC.) Artocarpus lacucha (Roxb.) Barringtonia acutangula (L.) Bauhinia malabarica (Roxb.) Bauhinia vahlii (Wight & Arn.) Bauhinia variegata (L.) Bombax ceiba (L.) Boswellia serrata (Roxb.) Bridelia retusa (Willd.) Buchanania lanzan Spreng. Careya arborea (Roxb.) Casearia elliptica (Willd.) Casearia graveolens Dalz. Cassia fistula (L.) Cayratia auriculata (Roxb.) Cayratia trifolia (L.) Cedrela toona (Roxb.)

Stem density ha-1 (D) 13 114

Stem density ha -1 (UD) 52 147

Plant parts harvested wood, leaves, fruit wood

Uses fuel-wood, medicine fuel-wood, medicine

24 187 73 16 0 59 22 26 0 22 93 37 111 36 63 29 4 0

60 137 132 163 28 111 41 98 77 80 169 100 237 108 45 117 86 19

wood wood and gum fruits, leaves wood wood wood, bark wood wood, fruits wood, leaves wood seeds, wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood

fuel-wood fuel-wood, timber, gum fruits, fodder fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, rope fuel-wood fuel-wood, silk cotton fuel-wood, medicine timber, fuel-wood fuel-wood, food, timber fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood

R e s u l t s | 48

Cleistanthus collinus (Roxb.) Cochlospermum religiosum (L.) Alston Crateva religiosa G. Forst. Croton roxburghii Balak. Dalbergia latifolia (Roxb.) Dalbergia sisoo (Roxb.) Dillenia pentagyna (Roxb.) Dioscorea spp. (L.) Diospyros malabarica (Desr.) Kostel. Diospyros melanoxylon (Roxb.) Diospyros montana (Roxb.) Phyllanthus emblica (L) Entada rheedii Spreng. Erythrina suberosa (Roxb.) Euonymus glaber (Roxb.) Ficus benghalensis (L.) Ficus hispida L. f. Ficus religiosa (L.) Gardenia gummifera L. f. Garuga pinnata (Roxb.) Glochidion lanceolarium (Roxb.) Glycosmis pentaphylla (Retz.) Gmelina arborea (Roxb.) Gnetum ula Brongn. Haldina cordifolia (Roxb.) Homalium nepalens Benth. Hymenodictyon excelsum (Roxb.) Hyptianther asticta Willd. Indigofera cassioides DC.

27 0 0 42 0 0 211 0 0 14 21 19 94 38 11 0 3 1 0 5 49 48 0 2 9 48 0 23 16

81 36 59 102 91 45 181 13 12 28 0 16 60 0 53 2 81 15 32 32 125 130 48 0 41 83 25 29 5

wood wood wood wood wood wood seeds, wood tuber wood leaves, fruits wood fruit wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood, flowers

fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood timber, fuel-wood timber, Fuel-wood fuel-wood, oil food fuel-wood fuel-wood, tendu leaves, food fuel-wood medicine fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, timber fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood

R e s u l t s | 49

Ixora parviflora Vahl. Kydia calycina (Roxb.) Lagerstroemia parviflora (Roxb.) Lannea coromandelica (Houtt.) Merr. Litsea glutinosa (Lour.) Robins. Madhuca indica Gmel. Mangifera indica (L.) Melia dubia (L.) Michelia champaca( L.) Miliusa velutina (Dunal) Hook. f. Millettia extensa Benth. Mitragyna parvifolia (Roxb.) Nyctanthes arbor-tristis (L.) Ochna obtusata DC. Phoebe wightii Meisn. Pongamia pinnata (L.) Pierre Protium serratum (Wall. ex Colebr.) Engl. Prunus ceylanica (Wight.) Pterocarpus marsupium (Roxb.) Samanea saman (Jacq.) Merr. Schleichera oleosa (Lour.) Oken. Schrebera swietenioides (Roxb.) Securinega virosa (Roxb. ex Willd.) Shorea Robusta Gaertn .f Sterospermum suaveolens

39 26 30 6 0 42 8 58 40 53 12 24 0 44 42 16 9 41 101 40 4 0 0 4202 28

0 32 81 49 87 143 110 223 60 188 120 67 15 57 51 193 55 41 122 155 132 73 74 4431 245

wood wood wood wood wood flower, fruits, wood fruits wood flower, wood wood wood wood wood wood wood seeds, wood wood wood timber wood wood seeds, leaves, wood wood wood wood, leaves, seeds, timber, sap wood

fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, liquor, food fuel-wood, timber and food fuel-wood fuel-wood, flower fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, oil fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, fodder, oil fuel-wood fuel-wood timber, fuel-wood, oil, resin, utensils fuel-wood

R e s u l t s | 50

(Roxb.) Suregada angustifolia. (Baill.) Symplocos cochinchinensis (Lour.) Syzygium cerasoides (Roxb.) Syzygium cumini (L.) Skeels Terminalia arjuna (L.) Terminalia bellirica (L.) Terminalia chebula (L.) Terminalia tomentosa (Roxb.) Toona ciliata Roem. Trewia nudiflora (L.) Vitex leucoxylon (L.) Wendlandia exerta (Roxb.) Wendlandia tinctoria (Roxb.) Xylia xylocarpa (Roxb.) Ziziphus rugosa Lam. Zizyphus zujuba Lam. 28 0 8 114 107 45 55 107 0 6 12 42 0 5 2 2 126 65 37 120 278 128 36 236 29 129 169 19 37 82 28 21 wood wood fruits, wood fruits, leaves fruits fruits fruits wood wood wood wood wood wood wood wood fruit fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, food, timber fuel-wood, food, fodder fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, timber fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood fuel-wood, food

R e s u l t s | 51

5.3 Attitude of local people towards conservation of wild life in Similipal Tiger Reserve The previous chapters provided information on the socio-economic activities of the households and their dependence on the forests for fuel-wood and fodder, and their impact on the forest. Therefore, it is essential to empower local people to manage natural resources, however, without information on the relationship between the protected area and local communities, designing a management plan would be difficult. 5.3.1 Socio-economic profile

In the survey of attitudes towards Similipal Tiger Reserve, there were 116 younger people, 79 middle aged and 22 elder people in the database, the majority of whom (79%) were primarily agriculturists (Table 19). Daily wage workers were relatively fewer (12%). Very few of the respondents were employed by the Forest Department (Table 19). All the respondents were residents and their ancestors had resided in the villages for generations. A total of 146 of the respondents were men and 71 were women. The majority (190) was from buffer zone villages, and 27 were from the core zone.
Table 19: Occupation of the respondents and dependence upon forest products with relation to age classes. Age N Agriculture Younger (20-34) Middle (35-49) Elder (50+) Total 116 79 22 217 95 (82) 59 (75) 17 (77) 171 (79) Occupation (%) NTFPs 5 (4) 4 (5) 3 (13) 12 (6) Daily wage 13 (11) 14 (18) 2 (9) 27 (12) Forest Dept 3 (3) 2 (3) 0 5 (2) Forest fuelwood 116 79 22 217 Other NTFPs 6 4 4 14 7 5 1 13 Hunting

All the respondents used fuel-wood harvested from the forest for their domestic and agricultural requirements (Table 19). Few people (6%) collected other NTFPs and few hunted for bush meat (6%).

R e s u l t s | 52

A little over half (53%) the respondents supported protection of nature because it was a common heritage of the people (Table 20). The rest opposed the protected area: among those that opposed the protected area, the majority (42%) opposed it, because, it was imposed on them. Very few (4%) thought it was a waste of money which could be better spent on helping the poor (Table 20). There was no significant difference among the age classes in terms of support or lack of support of the protected area and conservation ( 2 = 0.40, df = 2, ns).
Table 20: Local support for conservation among the respondents. Age N Support (%) Common heritage 64 (55) 40 (51) 12 (55) 116 (53) No support (%) Money better Conservation used for poverty imposed alleviation 4 (4) 48 (41) 4 (5) 35 (44) 1 (5) 9 (41) 9 (4) 92 (42)

Younger (20-34) Middle (35-49) Elder (50+) Total

116 79 22 217

Conservation measures imposed a cost on the local communities because they lose access to forest resources upon which they depend for household requirements. Therefore, they were asked whether they were willing to bear the cost in terms of loss of resources. The support of the respondents for conservation was contingent upon limited (28%) or no costs (80%) (Table 21). Very few (5%) were agreeable to bearing a cost. There was no significant difference in the willingness to accept costs for conservation between the different age categories ( 2 = 4.52, df = 2, ns), different occupation/economic activities (2 = 0.17, df = 2, ns), and between respondents in the core and buffer zones ( Fishers exact test = 0.442, ns). About 64% of the respondents preferred the PA to be managed by local communities, and only 9% were in favour of management by the Forest Department. About 28% did not want the protected area at all (Table 21). There was no significant difference between young and middle aged people with regard to opinion management of PAs ( 2 = 0.08, df = 1, ns). The elderly people were completely against management by the Forest Department.

R e s u l t s | 53

Table 21: Local opinion about conservation cost to be borne by local communities and the management of the protected area. Age N Conservation cost At no cost Younger (20-34) Middle (35-49) Elder (50+) Total 116 79 22 217 95 (82) 64 (81) 14 (64) 173 (80) Little cost 15 (13) 12 (10) 6 (5) 33 (28) Cost acceptable 6 (5) 3 (4) 2 (9) 11 (5) FD 11 (9) 8 (10) 0 19 (9) Management (%) Local No PA Community 82 (45) 23 (20) 52 (66) 4 (18) 138 (64) 19 (24) 18 (84) 60 (28)

Women were less in favour of the Similipal PA (49%) than men (36%) although this was not significant (2 = 2.40, df = 1, ns). Among those that favoured the PA, the large majority wanted it to be a community managed than by the Forest Department, although a higher proportion of men supported management of the PA by the Forest Department (Table 22). Overall there were no significant differences between men and women for support/opposition to PA.
Table 22: Gender and support for the protected area and its management. Gender N Favour PA (%) Local community Forest Department decision decision 21 (36) 17 (28) 39 (49) 2 (2) Opposed to PA (%) 21 (36) 39 (49)

Male Female

147 70

5.3.2 Perceptions of species decline People who supported conservation as a common heritage of the country were more likely to perceive a decline of the tiger (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test = 2.911, p = 0.004), less likely to perceive the decline of the elephant (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test = -2.11, p = 0.035), and more likely to see the disappearance of trees (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test = 5.98, p < 0.0001). This suggests that conservation attitudes and perception of decline supported the hypotheses in two cases but not in the case of elephants.

R e s u l t s | 54

Local people of all age classes perceived that both the tiger and the Asian elephant had declined over time (Table 23, Fig. 9-10). In all 90% of the respondents agreed that the tiger and the elephant had disappeared (Table 24-25). The recollections of tiger sightings per annum were significantly higher 20 and 10 years ago than at present, with only 20% not having seen any tiger 20 years ago, whereas presently 92% had not sighted a tiger presently (2 = 128.8, df = 2, p < 0.0001, Table 24, Fig.9).
Table 23: Mean annual tiger and elephant sightings as recollected by respondents .

Tiger sightings 20 years ago 10 years ago Now

Annual sightings (Mean SD) 0.38 0.9 0.22 0.8 0.1 0.4

Elephant sightings 20 years ago 10 years ago Now

Annual sightings (Mean SD) 1.8 3 0.8 1 0.4 0.8

% annual tiger sightings

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
% of respondents

0 1 to 4

5+

20 years

10 years Past to present sightings

now

Figure 9: Recollections of annual tiger sightings over the years. Blue= no sightings, red=1-4 tigers per year and green= over 5 tigers per year.

The distribution of tiger sightings differed significantly between 20 years and present (Kolgomorov Smirnov = 0.95, p < 0.0001), but did not differ significantly between 10 years and present (Kolgomorov Smirnov = 0.52, ns), indicating that the decline had taken place

R e s u l t s | 55

over 10 years ago. Comparison of 0 and 1-4 categories of tiger sightings over different time periods using 2 test (2 = 128.8, df = 2, p < 0.0001). The recollections of elephant sightings per annum were significantly higher 20 and 10 years ago than at present, with only 20% not having seen any elephant 20 years ago, with 89% not having seen an elephant now and the number of elephants sighted has declined significantly from 20 years to present when just the 0 and 1-4 elephant categories were compared over the 3 time frames (2 = 39.42, df = 2, p < 0.0001, Table 24, Fig. 10).
Table 24: Tiger sightings and perceptions of tiger decline by age classes.

Age

Younger (20-34) Middle (35-50) Old (50+) Total

116 79 22 217

Recollections of tiger sightings (%) 20 years ago 10 years ago Current 0 1-4 5+ 0 1-4 5+ 0 1-4 106 10 0 110 6 19 1 20 (20) 38 8 46 (46) 22 13 35 (35) 62 16 184 (85) 17 6 33 (15) 0 0 0 72 18 200 (92) 7 4 17 (8)

5+ 0 0 0 0

Tiger gone (%) 108 (93) 66 (84) 21 (95) 195 (90)

% annual elephant sightings

80 70
% of respondents

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 to 4 5+

20 years

10 years Past to present sightings

now

Figure 10: Recollections of annual elephant sightings over the years. Blue= no sightings, red=1-4 tigers per year and green= over 5 tigers per year.

R e s u l t s | 56

The distribution of elephant sightings differed significantly between 20 years and present (Kolgomorov Smirnov = 0.94, p < 0.0001), and between 10 years and present (Kolgomorov Smirnov = 0.71, ns), suggesting that elephant decline has been going on since 20 years.
Table 25: Annual sightings of elephants as remembered by the local respondents. Age N Recollections of elephant sightings (%) 20 years ago 10 years ago Current 0 1-4 5+ 0 1-4 5+ 0 1-4 99 17 0 101 15 19 1 20 (20) 38 8 46 (46) 22 13 35 (35) 17 11 127 (59) 62 11 90 (41) 0 0 0 75 18 194 (89) 4 4 23 (11) Elephant gone (%) 108 (93) 66 (84) 21 (95) 195 (90)

Younger (20-34) Middle (35-50) Old (50+) Total

116 79 22

5+ 0 0 0 0

Twenty years ago there were significant differences in the mean numbers of tigers sighted in the core zone as compared with the buffer zone with the numbers in the core zone being higher (Table 26), whereas presently core zone sightings had declined to levels in the buffer zone (Table 26).
Table 26: Mean annual tiger and elephant sightings 20 years and at present in the core and buffer zones

Species/time frame

Tiger 20 years ago Tiger Now Elephant 20 years ago Elephant Now

Mean annual sightings Core Buffer (N=27) (N=190) 1.407 1.5 0.2370.699 0.850.36 0.780.41 2.82 3.35 1.622.68 0 0.050.21

T test -6.79 -0.81 -2.11

df 215 215 215

p <0.0001 ns 0.04

The mean annual sightings of elephants were significantly higher in the core zone as compared with the buffer zone 20 years ago; however, the respondents had not sighted any elephants currently in the core zone and the sightings had declined in the buffer zone (Table 26).

R e s u l t s | 57

5.3.3 Hunting The middle aged and older local respondents who were former or current hunters also recollected that hunting was relatively easy 20 years ago, and fewer agreed that it was easy 10 years ago and no one agreed that hunting was currently easy. This indicates a decline in the prey base (Table 27).
Table 27: Number of hunters of different age classes over a 20 year period. Age Younger (20-34) Middle (35-50) Old (50+) N 116 79 22 Currently Hunters 7 5 1 Easy Hunting 20 years ago 10 years ago 1 18 4 10 4

now 0 0 0

5.3.4 Disappearance of the forest The disappearance of trees appears to be more recent as per the recollections of the local people. All the elderly people and a high proportion of the middle aged people recollected that there were more trees and larger trees 20 years ago. The opinions of the different age classes significantly differed (2 = 85.49, df = 2, p < 0.0001, Table 28). About 95% of the younger respondents considered that there were more trees now, whereas only 32% and 2% of the middle aged and elderly respectively considered there were more trees now (Table 28). When comparing younger and middle aged people, the opinion of the middle aged significantly differed from that of the young (2 = 72.6, df = 2, p < 0.0001). Tree size appears to have declined more rapidly than numbers ( 2 = 7.49, df = 2, p = 0.02) according to local perceptions, since all the elderly respondents agreed that trees were more abundant and larger 20 years ago, whereas 89% and 76 % of the middle aged agreed to the same statement. Similarly all elderly respondents agreed that trees were more abundant and larger 10 years ago, whereas 94% and 71% of the middle aged agreed to the same statement.

R e s u l t s | 58

The views of the young differed probably because they were still too young to recollect the loss of trees (Table 28). Table 28: The perceptions of tree abundance and size over different time periods among different age classes.
Age N Tree abundance and size (%) 20 years ago 10 years ago Now More Bigger More Bigger More Bigger trees trees trees trees trees trees 19 (16) 6 (5) 65(56) 108 (93) 110 (95) 50 (43) 60 (76) 22 (100) 70 (89) 22 (100) 74 (94) 22 (100) 56 (71) 8 (36) 25 (32) 2 (9) 0 0

Younger (20-34) Middle (35-50) Old (50+)

116 79 22

There were significant differences between perceptions of higher tree abundance in the core zone as compared with the buffer zone 20 years ago and at present (Table 29), however, the perceptions of larger trees during the same time frame, did not significantly differ (Table 29).
Table 29: Comparison of perceptions of greater tree abundance and size between core and buffer zone 20 years ago and at present.

Category Tree abundance 20 years ago Now 20 years ago Now

Core (N=27) 0.4810.51 0.480.89 0.560.51 0.2242

Buffer (N=189) 1.4182.66 0.050.24 Tree size 0.440.50 0.2342

T test 1.82 -5.53 -1.16 0.05

df 201 215 215 215

P 0.07 <0.0001 ns ns