Traditionally, many conservationists and policymakers have seen biodiversity conservation as a choice between protecting nature and meeting human needs. Forests were often seen as places that had to be protected from people, while alleviating poverty and economic development were treated as separate concerns.
A new international study has concluded that this is a harmful view.
In a paper in the journal Nature Sustainability, researchers from the University of Notre Dame, the University of Michigan, Yale University, the University of Colorado Boulder (U.S.), the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, the University of Manchester (U.K.), the University of Victoria (Canada), and the Indian School of Business analysed data from community-managed forests in the tropics.
The data came from the International Forestry Resources and Institutions network, and spanned 322 community-managed tropical forests in 15 countries from 1993 to 2017.
The dataset’s size allowed the researchers to understand both current patterns in forest biodiversity and how they had changed over time. Principally, they found a significant link between people’s livelihoods and forest biodiversity.
Forests, people, livelihoods
Forests with more poor households and communities that depended more on fuelwood were also found to have less diverse tree species. The team also found similar patterns in forests in densely populated areas with higher levels of poverty.
On the other hand, forests where communities had access to alternative livelihoods, such as farming, had more diverse trees.
Tree species diversity refers to the number of tree species in a forest; it is an important measure of biodiversity. Forests with more species tend to support more wildlife, are ecologically more stable, and are often more resilient to environmental change.
Overall, the analysis found that a greater dependence on forest resources was associated with lower tree species diversity.
However, the researchers emphasised that poverty is not responsible for biodiversity loss. They pointed out that when people have fewer livelihood options and depend heavily on forests to survive, the pressure on forest resources automatically increases. The way out is to improve economic opportunities.
The fortress model
The study also focused on human-dominated landscapes, which are common in India. Most forests in the country are owned and managed by State Forest Departments. And for decades, this apparatus has followed the fortress model — where protected areas are managed by minimising human activities and restricting access to resources. While this model has allowed the Departments to recover several iconic species and strengthen protection, it has some severe limitations.
Today, many protected areas are increasingly becoming isolated islands surrounded by human-dominated landscapes.
“The forests in these landscapes are smaller in size and bear a heavy burden of extraction,” Ashwini Chhatre, associate professor of Public Policy at the Indian School of Business and one of the study’s authors, said.
Around 275 million people depend on these forests to varying degrees for their livelihoods and daily needs.
“But these forests are ecologically important and provide significant ecosystem services,” Dr. Chhatre said.
According to him, the new findings can be used to support conservation by prioritising wildlife corridors — patches of forests that form a loose link between protected areas.
“These corridors are used by large mammals to move between protected areas. The improvement of species richness in these corridors will increase forest resilience and support conservation directly,” he said.
Helping conservation
To reduce pressure on forests, State Forest Departments across India have introduced initiatives like distributing subsidised LPG connections and efficient cooking stoves and heaters around many tiger reserves and national parks. The measures reduce people’s need for fuelwood and to enter forests.
Extending similar support to private landholdings and community forests along wildlife corridors could help conservation.
However, Imran Siddiqui, senior field conservationist at the Centre for Wildlife Studies, who has worked extensively in protected areas and with forest communities in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, said that while such initiatives are well-intentioned and that communities often welcome them, they face implementation challenges.
“Funding can be inconsistent, participation from local communities may vary, and long-term support is not always guaranteed,” he said.
Conservation partners
Today, there is growing recognition among wildlife conservationists and forest managers that conservation can’t succeed without the support of local communities.
In addition to fuel alternatives and subsidies, many State Forest Departments also give local community members jobs in tourism, forest protection, and seasonal conservation work.
The late ecologist Madhav Gadgil was a strong advocate of an inclusive approach, believing conservation efforts would be more effective if local communities had rights, incentives, and a meaningful role in managing natural resources. He also emphasised the value of traditional ecological knowledge, and argued people who had lived alongside forests for generations possessed insights that could complement scientific approaches to conservation.
In Ladakh, the Snow Leopard Conservancy has mitigated economic losses of human-wildlife conflict with community-run homestays and livestock insurance programmes. In Maharashtra’s Sindhudurg district, village-based Mangrove Co-Management Committees help protect mangrove ecosystems while supporting fisheries, ecotourism, and sustainable aquaculture.
In Arunachal Pradesh, hornbill nest adoption programmes run by the Nature Conservation Foundation have encouraged local communities to protect nesting sites, with former Nyishi tribe hunters now serving as nest protectors and forest patrollers.
There is also tremendous scope to expand these initiatives and to further support community welfare.
As Mr. Siddiqui said, wildlife tourism is a growing multi-million-dollar industry, yet only a small fraction of its revenue reaches the communities living alongside forests and protected areas. He added that a greater share of these benefits should be directed to local communities, creating stronger incentives for conservation.
The findings of the new study highlight the close links between alleviating poverty and conserving biodiversity, and show how socio-economic conditions and conservation goals need not be in conflict with each other. By recognising these connections, both conservationists and policymakers can design more inclusive frameworks to benefit both people and nature.
Ipsita Herlekar is an independent science writer.
