Women and sacred forests 833
resource, such as a forest, leads to better resource conserva- tion and regeneration’, and women have a beneficial impact on conservation outcomes because of their compliance with rules. Women’s participation in decision-making and im- plementation of forest protection has a positive effect on the control of illegal grazing, illegal felling, and regeneration. On examining 675 village-level forest protection committees in Madhya Pradesh, India, they found that women’s partici- pation was associated with an increase of 24% in the prob- ability of controlling illicit grazing, an increase of 28%in probability of controlling illicit felling, and an increase of 28% in probability of forest regeneration (Agrawal et al., 2006). Further evidence supportingwomen’s role in strengthen-
ing and reviving the tradition of sacred forests comes from east-central India. Borde & Jackman (2010) describe a wo- men’s environmentalmovement that has led to the creation and regeneration of several hundred sacred forests dedicated to a pre-Sanskritic earth goddess.Women were traditionally prohibited from entering the sacred forests and performing rituals as they were believed to have a polluting influence. But now, despite facing censure from men in their commu- nity, the women have taken over neglected sacred forests, restored biodiversity by planting native and culturally important species such as sal Shorea robusta and karam Nauclea parvifolia, and imposed taboos on tree cutting (Borde & Jackman, 2010). In Mendha (Lekha) and Pachgaon villages the Community Forest Resource provi- sion of the Forest Rights Act has been successfully imple- mented, with the men and women having collectively decided to set apart substantial forest areas as strictly pro- tected sacred forests (Gadgil, 2018). The interactions of women with sacred forests have until
now been restricted but this evidence from other studies shows there is scope for women in the Bhimashankar region to be more involved in sacred forest conservation and man- agement. Women in Bhimashankar expressed the need to reforest sparse sacred forests and are actively participat- ing in reviving bio-cultural diversity. Additionally, they ex- pressed interest in continuing the sacred forest tradition. As in other places, their involvement could strengthen the in- stitution. But for that to occur, the sacred forest institution will have to adapt to changing conditions, and allow equal involvement of women. Following such changes, it would be valuable to examine any changes in the integrity and bio- diversity of sacred forests wherewomen have been given this more inclusive role.
Acknowledgements We acknowledge the financial support provided by the Randolph G. Pack Environmental Institute (Department of Environmental Studies) and Graduate Student Association Research grant of State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry. We thank Kalpavriksh and Subhash Dolas, Minal Sonawne and Lila Bhomale for their help with fieldwork, and all the villagers who took the time to talk with us, and
acknowledge the constructive feedback provided by Martin Fisher, Helen Anthem and two anonymous reviewers.
Author contributions Study design, fieldwork, data analysis: SM; writing: SM, SAWD.
Conflicts of interest None.
Ethical standards This study was authorized on 17 August 2015 by SyracuseUniversity’s InstitutionalReviewBoard (IRB# 15-210), and the research otherwise abided by the Oryx guidelines on ethical standards.
References
ACHARYA,A. & ORMSBY,A.(2017) The cultural politics of sacred groves: a case study of devithans in Sikkim, India. Conservation & Society, 15, 232–242.
AGARWAL,B.(2009) Gender and forest conservation: the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68, 2785–2799.
AGARWAL,B.(2010) Gender and Green Governance: The Political Economy ofWomen’s Presence Within and Beyond Community Forestry. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
AGRAWAL, A., YADAMA, G., ANDRADE,R.&BHATTACHARYA,A. (2006) Decentralization and Environmental Conservation: Gender Effects from Participation in Joint Forest Management. CAPRi working papers, 53. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
ALLENDORF, T., BRANDT,J.&YANG,J.(2014) Local perceptions of Tibetan village sacred forests in northwest Yunnan. Biological Conservation, 169, 303–310.
BERNARD,R.H. (2006) ResearchMethods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. 4th edition. Rowman Altamira, Lanham, USA.
BHAGWAT, S., KUSHALAPPA, C.G.,WILLIAMS, P.A. & BROWN, N.D. (2005) The role of informal protected areas in maintaining bio-diversity in theWesternGhats of India. Ecology and Society, 10, 8.
BHAGWAT, S., NOGUÉ,S.&WILLIS, K.J. (2013) Cultural drivers of reforestation in tropical forest Groves of theWestern Ghats of India. Forest Ecology and Management, 329, 393–400.
BHAGWAT,S.&RUTTE,C.(2006) Sacred groves: potential for biodiversity management. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 519–524.
BIJUKUMAR,V.(2019) When religious faith mutilates gender equality: women entry in Sabarimala Temple in Kerala. ANTYAJAA: Indian Journal ofWomen and Social Change, 4, 238–244.
BORDE,R.&JACKMAN,A. (2010) The devi as ecofeminist warrior: reclaiming the role of sacred natural sites in east-central India. In Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture (eds B. Verschuuren, R. Wild, J. McNeely & G. Oviedo), pp. 272–279. Earthscan, London, UK.
BORGES,R. (1996) Joint management of BhimashankarWildlife Sanctuary. In People and Protected Areas: Towards Participatory Conservation in India (eds A. Kothari, N. Singh & S. Suri), pp. 151–166. Sage Publications, New Delhi, India.
BURMAN, J.J.R. (2003) Sacred Groves Among Communities: The Mahadeo Kolis and the Kunbis of theWestern Ghats. Mittal Publications, New Delhi, India.
CHANDRAKANTH, M.G., BHAT, M.G. & ACCAVVA, M.S. (2004) Socio-economic changes and sacred groves in South India: protecting a community-based resource management institution. Natural Resources Forum, 28, 102–111.
Oryx, 2021, 55(6), 827–834 © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Fauna & Flora International doi:10.1017/S0030605320001179
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164
