Contradictions in Conservation: Education, Income, and the Desire to Live Near Forest Ecosystems

Forests are degrading and declining rapidly, and an urgent need to take protective action has been recognised in several recent international initiatives. Successful conservation of forests depends on the participation of those living in their proximity. We evaluate the impact of education, income, and recent wildlife-related losses on the stated preferences of rural landowners bordering Bandipur and Nagarahole National Parks in India. We assess their preferences to live besides a forest, and the associated perceived benefits and costs. We find a majority prefer to live beside the forest. The top reported reasons being "forest provides a pleasant surrounding", a cultural benefit and "forest regulates climate and rainfall", a regulatory benefit. However, landowners with higher education have a lower preference of living beside the forest; even though they perceive a higher cultural benefit from it. We also find that landowners from higher income brackets have a higher perception of forest regulatory services. As expected, experiences of wildlife-related losses are associated with a lower preference to live beside a forest, and a lower perception of cultural services. Our findings suggest that, while education and income may improve the awareness of intangible ecosystem services, limited economic opportunities for the educated may discourage them from wanting to live close to forests. Access to livelihoods linked to forest conservation, and wildlife conflict mitigation may be necessary to strengthen local support for conservation. We believe the insights have wider applicability, particularly for tropical nations aiming for forest landscape conservation to achieve international targets.