IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v172y2025ics1389934125000218.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rules and interactions around customary tree ownership in forested public lands: A qualitative study in Jharkhand, India

Author

Listed:
  • Kar, Sabyasachi
  • Sinha, Gaurav R.
  • Dwivedi, Puneet

Abstract

Customary ownership of trees in forested public lands is common among tribal communities in India. This separation of trees and land ownership raises questions about the nature of such ownership, the rules governing them, and the factors shaping them. Despite its socio-cultural and ecological significance, limited studies have explored this form of tree ownership. Additionally, recent forest policy regimes have also remained silent on this. This study addresses these gaps by documenting customary rules governing tree ownership, examining its governance systems, analyzing interactions between villagers and trees, and assessing the outcomes of these interactions on people and local forest resources. This study was conducted in four tribal villages of Jharkhand, India, using a qualitative approach. Data collection included focus group discussions with male and female key informants and household interviews with household heads, predominantly men. Thematic analysis was conducted within Ostrom's Socio-Ecological System (SES) framework. We identified SES categories such as Resource Systems, Governance Systems, Resource Units, Users, and other broader socio-ecological categories and examined their interactions and outcomes within customary tree ownership. Key findings include the documentation of customary rules governing tree ownership creation, inheritance, distribution, and management practices. Interactions such as adjudication processes, commercialization of forest products, and external policy interventions resulted in positive and negative outcomes. Positive outcomes included enhanced familial ties, community cohesion, increased household income, and a growing population of economically valuable tree species in village forests. Negative outcomes included forest degradation, reduced species diversity, and increased illegal logging caused by weak collective-choice rules, displacement, policy interventions, and market pressures. The study underscores the importance of recognizing customary tree ownership in forested public land as it generates valuable insights for policymakers to promote sustainable forest management and enhance the well-being of the tribals in Jharkhand and beyond.

Suggested Citation

  • Kar, Sabyasachi & Sinha, Gaurav R. & Dwivedi, Puneet, 2025. "Rules and interactions around customary tree ownership in forested public lands: A qualitative study in Jharkhand, India," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000218
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103442
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934125000218
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2025.103442?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howard, Patricia L. & Nabanoga, Gorettie, 2007. "Are there Customary Rights to Plants? An Inquiry among the Baganda (Uganda), with Special Attention to Gender," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1542-1563, September.
    2. Takahashi, Ryo & Otsuka, Keijiro & Tilahun, Mesfin & Birhane, Emiru & Holden, Stein, 2024. "Beyond Ostrom: Randomized experiment of the impact of individualized tree rights on forest management in Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    3. Singh, M.P. & Bhojvaid, P.P. & de Jong, Wil & Ashraf, J. & Reddy, S.R., 2017. "Forest transition and socio-economic development in India and their implications for forest transition theory," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 65-71.
    4. Jyotish Prakash Basu, 2021. "Forest participation of local communities: a study of a tribal dominated region in India," Journal of Social and Economic Development, Springer;Institute for Social and Economic Change, vol. 23(1), pages 180-201, June.
    5. Lise, Wietze, 2000. "Factors influencing people's participation in forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 379-392, September.
    6. Bhattacharya, Prodyut & Pradhan, Lolita & Yadav, Ganesh, 2010. "Joint forest management in India: Experiences of two decades," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 54(8), pages 469-480.
    7. Tsegaye T. Gatiso, 2019. "Households’ dependence on community forest and their contribution to participatory forest management: evidence from rural Ethiopia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 181-197, February.
    8. Kabita Baral, 2024. "Revisiting Decentralised Governance of Natural Resources in India: Conceptual Binaries and Restrictive Policy Design," Journal of Development Policy and Practice, , vol. 9(2), pages 219-237, July.
    9. Lara Domínguez & Colin Luoma, 2020. "Decolonising Conservation Policy: How Colonial Land and Conservation Ideologies Persist and Perpetuate Indigenous Injustices at the Expense of the Environment," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, February.
    10. Amrita Sen & Sarmistha Pattanaik, 2019. "The political agenda of implementing Forest Rights Act 2006: evidences from Indian Sundarban," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 2355-2376, October.
    11. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    12. Shruthi Dakey & Bhumika Morey & Vibhas Sukhwani & Sameer Deshkar, 2023. "Applying Socio-Ecological Perspective for Fostering Resilience in Rural Settlements—Melghat Region, India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    13. Fanari, Eleonora, 2019. "Relocation from protected areas as a violent process in the recent history of biodiversity conservation in India," Ecology, Economy and Society - the INSEE Journal, Indian Society of Ecological Economics (INSEE), vol. 2(01), January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pathak, Ravi & Thakur, Shinny & Negi, Vikram S. & Rawal, Ranbeer S. & Bahukhandi, Amit & Durgapal, Kamini & Barola, Anjali & Tewari, Deep & Bhatt, Indra D., 2021. "Ecological condition and management status of Community Forests in Indian western Himalaya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.
    3. Kusters, Koen & de Graaf, Maartje & Ascarrunz, Nataly & Benneker, Charlotte & Boot, René & van Kanten, Rudi & Livingstone, John & Maindo, Alphonse & Mendoza, Heidi & Purwanto, Edi & Rodríguez, Carlos , 2022. "Formalizing community forest tenure rights: A theory of change and conditions for success," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    4. Thoker, Irshad Ahmad & Bhat, M. Shafi & Shah, Shamim Ahmad & Lone, Fayaz Ahmad & Jeelani, Peer, 2024. "An appraisal of people's participation in the joint forest management programme in the Kashmir Himalayas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    5. Fizza Tahir & Rizwan Rasheed & Shakeel Mahmood & Khurram Chohan & Sajid Rashid Ahmad, 2024. "REDD+ framework and forest sustainability in Pakistan versus other South Asian countries: a multi-criteria-based analysis," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 6471-6492, March.
    6. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    7. David Aubin & Frédéric Varone, 2013. "Getting Access to Water: Property Rights or Public Policy Strategies?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 31(1), pages 154-167, February.
    8. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    9. Rakotonarivo, O. Sarobidy & Bredahl Jacobsen, Jette & Poudyal, Mahesh & Rasoamanana, Alexandra & Hockley, Neal, 2018. "Estimating welfare impacts where property rights are contested: methodological and policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 71-83.
    10. Rémy Herrera & Poeura Tetoe, 2013. "The Papua Niugini Paradox. Land property archaism and Modernity of peasant resistance ?," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00786274, HAL.
    11. Olegas Beriozovas & Dalia Perkumienė & Mindaugas Škėma & Abdellah Saoualih & Larbi Safaa & Marius Aleinikovas, 2024. "Research Advancement in Forest Property Rights: A Thematic Review over Half a Decade Using Natural Language Processing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-28, September.
    12. Leibbrandt, Andreas & Lynham, John, 2018. "Does the allocation of property rights matter in the commons?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 201-217.
    13. Massimiliano Gambardella, 2011. "The Scope of Open Licenses in Cultural Contents Production and Distribution," Working Papers hal-04140977, HAL.
    14. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    15. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    16. Rout, S., 2008. "Institutional and policy reforms in water sector in India: review of issues, concepts and trends," Conference Papers h042926, International Water Management Institute.
    17. Habibullah Magsi & Andre Torr & Yansui Liu & M. Javed Sheikh, 2017. "Land Use Conflicts in the Developing Countries: Proximate Driving Forces and Preventive Measures," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 56(1), pages 19-30.
    18. Isaac Sarfo & Bi Shuoben & Li Beibei & Solomon Obiri Yeboah Amankwah & Emmanuel Yeboah & John Ernest Koku & Edward Kweku Nunoo & Clement Kwang, 2022. "Spatiotemporal development of land use systems, influences and climate variability in Southwestern Ghana (1970–2020)," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(8), pages 9851-9883, August.
    19. MAREK HUDON & BENJAMIN HUYBRECHTS & Anaïs PÉRILLEUX & Marthe NYSSENS, 2017. "Understanding Cooperative Finance As A New Common," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 155-177, June.
    20. H.M. Tuihedur Rahman & Gordon M. Hickey, 2020. "An Analytical Framework for Assessing Context-Specific Rural Livelihood Vulnerability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-26, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:172:y:2025:i:c:s1389934125000218. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.