Values and Peoples Participation

in Community Based Forest Management

HIMADRI SINHA
DAMODAR SUAR

This study tests whether participation and values favouring forest protection vary in different forms of
community forestry, and whether members identification with institutional values and forest central-
ity determines peoples participation. Three hundred ninety seven members from 17 forest institutions
and their leaders were interviewed. Participation was significantly higher in indigenous community
forest management than in crafted community forest management and joint forest management. Values
of livelihood security from forest, sacrificing the present benefit,and avoidance of free riding
emerged as important for indigenous and crafted community forest management compared to joint
forest management. Members identification with institutional values and centrality of the forest to the
lives of members in forest institutions were higher in indigenous and crafted community forest manage-
ment than in joint forest management. Irrespective of forest institutions, the higher the value congru-
ence and centrality of the forest, the higher was peoples participation.

Introduction both governmental and non-governmental efforts

Rapid decline of forests in India was viewed to
be result of centralized bureaucratic management
of forest departments, failure of grassroots for-
est management institutions and lack of commu-
nity participation in forest protection. Prior to
the British Forest Act (1878), Indian forests used
to be managed by forest communities under the
leadership of local elders. However, the Forest
Act barred these communities from enjoying both
property and usufruct rights.2 This turned forest
communities from guardians to encroachers and
destroyers of forests. During the past few decades,
have been made to involve forest communities in
the all-round affairs of forest management. This
has yielded positive results in stopping illegal for-
est felling and regenerating degraded forests.
Evidence suggests that employees perfor-
mance, commitment, job satisfaction and effi-
ciency increase when employees identify with
organizational values.4 Though such outcomes of
value identification are desirable in the corporate
sector, it is peoples participation that is essential
for the use and conservation of forest resources.
To our knowledge, no empirical study has been

Himadri Sinha is Reader, Xavier Institute of Social Service, Ranchi. Damodar Suar is Associate Professor, Department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur.
142
conducted on values and participation in forest
management. This study, therefore, examines
(a) whether participation and values favouring
forest protection vary in different forms of com-
munity based forest management, and (b) whether
members identification with institutional values
(or the extent of value congruence) and (c) for-
est centrality determine peoples participation.
Background of Community
Based Forest Management
Community-based forest management in India has
been evolved in three forms: (a) indigenous com-
munity forest management (ICFM); (b) crafted
community forest management (CCFM); and (c)
joint forest management (JFM). ICFM emerged
out of local initiatives as a result of growing stress
due to rapid degradation of forests. Local initia-
tives were confined to those areas where com-
munities had either strong economic dependency
on forests or an unbroken tradition of communal
resource management. CCFM emerged with the
active sponsorship of local governmental and non-
governmental organizations, while the forest de-
partment promoted JFM. Forest departments (the
owner) and communities (de facto user) jointly
managed forest protection activities. Villagers
were given the substantial share of non-timber
forest produce (NTFP) along with partial share
of harvested timber.5
In ICFM, resources are managed by the expe-
riential knowledge and skills of locals according
to locally conducive norms. CCFM largely emu-
lates ICFM particularly for instilling a strong sense
of ownership in the minds of locals. However,
crafting agencies do influence rule-making pro-
cess and the resource management system by
infusing their values and priorities, which may
not be embedded in the local context. Contrarily,
JFM witnesses greater external intervention of
state forest departments. The forest department
decides JFM rules, resource management styles
and selection of subsidiary activities. Local people
are given limited room for exercising their choice.
Unlike CCFM, where crafting agencies try to
withdraw themselves gradually, in JFM the for-
est department maintains a constant strategic pres-
ence in its governance.
Peoples Participation
Participation is a dynamic process through which
stakeholders of forest management institutions
influence and share control over development ini-
tiatives, and the decisions and resources that af-
fect them.6 Participation in a group is defined in
its narrowest sense in terms of nominal member-
ship7 and in the broadest sense as a process in
which the disadvantaged have voice and influ-
ence in decision making.8 Participation has two
dimensions: direct and indirect. Direct participa-
tion includes the involvement of stakeholders in
activities like attending meetings concerning for-
est protection, taking active part in meetings, con-
tributing labour towards forest management,
monitoring and patrolling, etc. Indirect participa-
tion refers to individuals obedience to forest pro-
tection rules, motivating family members and oth-
ers for forest protection and providing moral sup-
port to the community to ensure equity, justice
and transparency in forest management.99
Values, Value Congruence,
Forest Centrality and Participation
Three Forms of Forest Institutions
Differentcommunity-based forest management
institutions-ICFM, CCFM and JFM-vary from
each other in terms of composition of stakeholders
in the forest protection body, external influence,

freedom in exercising local wisdom and institu-
tional arrangement that favours involvement of
primary stakeholders through devolution of
power. Such variations may influence peoples
willingness to participate in forest management.
ICFM and CCFM show greater compatibility with
local culture and address primary stakeholders
aspirations in a more democratic manner than
JFM.&dquo; However, crafting agencies like NGOs
worldviews often influence the decisions of
CCFM. In JFM, the influence of forest depart-
ments and local administrative bodies cannot be
ruled out. Such influence may prevent the fulfill-
ment of local aspirations and discourage peoples
involvement.
Hypothesis 1: Peoples participation would dif-
fer in the three forms of forest
management.
Values
Values are desirable ideals.2 They determine how
one ought or ought not to behave or act. Rokeach
offers five assumptions about the nature of val-
ues : (a) values are small in number; (b) individu-
als possess similar values in varying degrees;
(c) values are organized into a value system;
(d) the antecedents of values are society, institu-
tions and personality; and (e) the consequences
of values are manifested in virtually all phenom-
ena-attitude, behaviour, ideology, evaluations,
etc. In accordance with the last assumption, val-
ues are thought to influence every facet of hu-
man behaviour&dquo; because of their centrality to in-
dividuals personality and cognitive structure.4
The inner possession of values guides our outer
activities. The usage of the term value is con-
textual. Desirable values for community forest
institutions include institutional values such as
sacrificing the present benefit, avoidance of free
riding, livelihood security from forest, punishment
to the offender for violation of rules and local
norms, etc.
143
Value Congruence
An individual learns and inculcates values from
the family, school, society, religion, media and
other socio-cultural forces. Being a member of
the community forest institution, an individuals
institutional socialization takes place. Members try
to imbibe institutional values incorporated in short-
and long-term goals of the forest institution, com-
ply with the rules and norms of the institution,
and interact with similar others. Leaders of for-
est management institutions preach and practice
the institutional values. Leaders attempt ot change
the values of constituents in the direction of insti-
tutional demands through interaction, awareness,
enforcement of institutional rules and administra-
tion of instrinsic (praise, appreciation, etc.) or
extrinsic (tangible benefits) rewards. Members
of forest institutions mould their values in the di-
rection of organizational demands. Sharing of in-
stitutional values among the members of forest
institutions shapes the institutional culture.&dquo;
Shared values reflect the characteristic beliefs and
behaviour of institutional members in relation to
how things are, how things ought to be, and how
each member is expected to behave. Such values
provide a sense of direction to the members of
the forest institutions in making choices among
conflicting options and viewpoints, and direct
them to engage in activities congruent with the
institutional demands.6
Long-term success of the institution depends .
on members internalization of institutional val-
ues and how faithfully they carry out those val-
ues. When the values of the institution and its
members are congruent, the source of potential
conflict, dissatisfaction and inefficiency is re-
duced while communication, camaraderie and
teamwork are enhanced. If constituents of forest
institutions do not inculcate institutional values,
then participation in the institutions activities is
likely to decline and the institution may gradually
fade away. As mentioned earlier, the three types
144
of forest institutions differ in their rules and prac-
tices, and hence members values and identifica-
tion with institutional values are likely to differ.
Past studies on values in organizations have
unfolded three aspects. First, values are assessed
using rating and ranking scales. Second, each
lower-level functionary is asked how important a
set of values is to her/him to identify personal
values. Their leader/superior is asked to rank, rate
or express opinion on importance of values to the
institution for assessing institutional values. Third,
the extent of similarity between ones personal
and institutional values has indexed value con-
gruence.&dquo; Incorporating similar conceptualization,
the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a : The personal values would differ in
three forms of forest management.
Hub : Congruence between the values of for-
est institution and its members would
differ in three forms of forest man-
agement.
H~c : Higher the value congruence, more
would be the peoples participation.
Forest Centrality
More than 50 million of the worlds poorest tribal
population depend heavily onnatural forest re-
sources for their hand-to-mouth survival.8 De-
spite this struggle for survival, millions of forest
dependent individuals are driven by the central
value to protect forests.9 Success stories of for-
est protection through peoples initiatives subscribe
to this view. It is not yet confirmed whether per-
sonal inclination to forest protection influences
individual participation.
H3a : Centrality of forest to lives of people
would differ in three forms of forest
management.
H3b : Higher the centrality of forest, more
would be the peoples participation.
Method
Sample
Forestmanagement in the three eastern states of
India-Jharkhand, Orissa and West Bengal-was
studied. Seven JFM units-two each from
Jharkhand and Orissa, and three from West Ben-
gal ; six ICFM units-four from Jharkhand and
tow from Orissa; and four CCFM units from
Orissa were selected for the study. JFM units
were selected from Kanke and Bero range of
Ranchi district in Jharkhand, Athamalik range of
Angul district in Orissa, and Hijli range of
Midnapur district in West Bengal. ICFM units were
selected from Ranchi district of Jharkhand and
Dhenkanal district of Orissa, and CCFM units were
selected from Angul and Dhenkanal districts of
Orissa. The Tree Growers Cooperative Federa-
tion promoted CCFM units. Because Jharkhand
did not have any CCFM unit and West Bengal did
not have any ICFM and CCFM units, no such
sample was taken from these states. The deci-
sion to include these forest protection units was
guided by approachability and convenience. Thus,
we adopted a purposive sampling procedure in
selecting forest units.
Ten per cent of the households were selected
from each village adopting systematic random sam-
pling procedure. Persons who represented these
households in forest protection committees (FPCs)
as members were interviewed. Total interviewees
were 397, out of which 86 were from ICFM units,
113 were from CCFM units and 198 respondents
were from JFM units (Table 1). The interview took
place in the afternoon and evening hours when the
respondents were available. The interviewees were
briefed about the purpose of the study and their
consent was sought for participation. Responses
were procured through face-to-face conversation.
Also, the president, secretary, and treasurer of each
forest protection unit were interviewed for identify-
ing the importance of values to forest institutions.
 145

Table 1
Sample Profile

aHM =
Homogeneous (more than 75 per cent of the people belong to a specific caste or tribe),
HT =
Heterogeneous; bM Male, F Female; ISC Scheduled caste, ST Scheduled tribe, G General.
= = = = =

Measures interviewed the people from Orissa with the help

of a vernacular interpreter. Including socio-de-
An interview schedule was prepared in English.
The English version of the schedule initially con-
mographic variables on age, castes, livelihood,
tained 30 items for assessing participation, 20 core
village(s) covered by forest protection commit-
tee, and village population, the interview sched-
values related to forest protection and one semi-
ule measured the following variables.
projective item for measuring forest centrality.
Four experts in forest management scrutinized Peoples Participation
this. The items agieed by all were retained. To
conduct the interview in three states differing in Singh used scaling method for measuring peoples
languages, this schedule was translated into local participation in forest management.2 The scale
did not cover all aspects of participation. A twelve-
languages in Hindi, Oriya and Bengali with the
item scale containing four items from Singhs
help of dual-language experts. To ensure the ac-
scale and eight other items assessed participa-
curacy of translation, another three dual-language
tion. The response descriptions against each item
experts back-translated these into English. Three
interview schedules in three local languages were were given on a three-point Likert-type scale-

pre-tested in three states for their understanding always (2), sometimes (1) and never (0). All items
and clarity. The first author, knowing Hindi and were keyed positively. When the scores of all

Bengali languages, interviewed the people from items on total sample were factor analyzed using
Jharkhand and West Bengal respectively, and also principal component analysis, and the factors were
146
rotated through varimax procedure, two factors
were extracted which explained 58.53 per cent
of total variance (Appendix I). The first factor
had significant loadings on eight items related to
direct participation. Sample items included Did
you participate in meetings called by forest pro-
tection committee? and Did you contribute
labour toward forest protection activities? The
second factor had loadings on four items thaw
assessed indirect participation. Sample items
included Do you abide by rules and norms of
your forest protection committee? and Do you
report to the managing committee about violation
of rules by any of the members? Alpha reliability
on the current sample was 0.93 for direct partici-
pation and 0.90 for indirect participation. High
scores indicated more direct and indirect partici-
pation.
Values
Ten items assessed the values for forest conser-
vation. Sample items included sacrificing the
present benefit, avoidance of free riding and
livelihoods security from forest. These values
were written on 10 separate cards in the vernacu-
lar language. Each respondent was asked to ar-
range the values on cards in order of importance
to her/him as guiding principles for forest con-
servation from highest to lowest. Highest impor-
tance was coded with a rank of one and the low-
est with a rank of ten. This denoted personal val-
ues. Similarly, the president, secretary and trea-
surer of each FPC were asked to rank the same
values jointly in order of priority as guiding prin-
ciples for forest conservation. Such joint ranking
indicated institutional values. Low ranks indicated
more important values.
Forest Centrality
This item was semi-projective in nature.2 Cen-
trality of the forest to ones life was measured
with the help of a circle having a radius of 50
mm. The circle was shown on a card. Each re-
spondent were asked to indicate the importance
of the forest to her/his life by putting a dot inside
the circle. Distance between the dot and the
centre of the circle was measured in mm. Forest
centrality was assessed by subtracting the dis-
tance from the radius. Higher values indicated
greater forest centrality to ones life.
Results
Three Forms of Forest
Institutions and Participation
Descriptive statistics is given here on peoples
participation against three forms of forest
management (Table 2). ICFM, CCFM and JFM
differed significantly on direct participation,
F 2,394 - 125.39, p < .001,< and on indirect partici-
pation, F 2,394 - 36.94, p .001. Post-hoc analy-
sis using Tukeys test confirmed that direct
participation was significantly higher in ICFM than
in CCFM, and least in JFM. On indirect partici-
pation, the trend was similar. CCFM and JFM did
not differ significantly on the extent of indirect
participation. Supporting the hypothesis l, peoples
participation was consistently higher in ICFM than
that of CCFM and JFM.
Table 2
Participation Against Forest Institutions
Values Prioritization
The more important values of ICFM were avoid-
ance of free riding, sacrificing present benefit
and livelihood security from forest; and the less
 147

important values were equal rights, sense of and dutifulness were given lower importance.
duty and obeying collective decisions. Such For members of JFM, the more important per-
important institutional values were fairly matched sonal values were self governance, avoidance
with the personal values of members. The higher of free riding and strict sanction and the less
prioritized values of CCFM were communal shar- important were obeying of collective decision,
ing, livelihood security from forest and avoid- eco-conservation and equal rights. Higher and
ance of free riding and lower prioritized values lower important institutional values in JFM partly
were equal rights, strict sanction and eco- matched with the personal values (Table 3).
conservation. Like ICFM, such institutional val- Barring JFM, the most important shared values
ues were shared among members in CCFM. In were livelihood security from forest and avoid-
JFM, institutional values like self-govemance, ance of free riding. The priorities of other insti-
livelihood security from forest and strict sanc- tutional and personal values differed in three forms
tion were given higher importance, whereas sac- of forest institutions and the hypothesis 2a was
rificing the present benefit, communal sharing supported.
Table 3
Value Ranking by Members and Leaders in Forest Institutions

IV =
Values, I
Sacrificing the present benefit, 2 Avoidance of free riding, 3 Livelihood security from forest, 4 Communal
= = = =

sharing, 5 Equal rights, 6 Dutiful, 7 Obeying collective decisions, 8 Eco-conservation, 9 Self-govemance, 10 = Strict
= = = = =

sanction for violation of rules and local norms; bI Importance.

=

Value Congruence .001. Post-hoc Tukeys test confirmed that ICFM

Ranks of 10 values by the president, secretary
(M= 0.81, SD = 0.17) had higher value congru-
ence than CCFM (M = 0.64, SD 0.18), and
=

and treasurer of each FPC jointly reflected insti-

CCFM than JFM (M = 0.45, SD 0.17). The
=

tutional values. These were correlated with the

ranks of each respondent of the same FPC. High
hypothesis 2b was supported.
rank-order correlation indicated more congruence Value Congruence and Participation
between the institutional and the personal values.
Value congruence differed significantly among As reported earlier, the extent of participation dif-
fered in three forms of forest institutions. Effect
ICFM, CCFM and JFM, F 2 394 =134.36, p <
148

of value congruence on participation was assessed
controlling the forest types. In the first step of
hierarchical regression analysis, two dummy vari-
ables were entered for three types of forest institu-
tions with JFM as reference group. In the second
step, when the confounding effects of forest types
on participation were controlled, higher value
congruence increased direct and indirect partici-
pation (Table 4). The results proved hypothesis
2c.

Table 4
Value Congruence and Forest Centrality Prediding Participation

IVC =
Value Congruence, FC =
Forest Centrality.
*
p <.05
.. p < .01
***p < .001
Forest Centrality and Participation Discussion
In consonance with hypothesis 3a, forest central- Forest dependent communities treat forest as as-
ity differed significantly among ICFM, CCFM and sets, savings and insurance both in short and long
JFM, F2394 72.65, p < .001. Post-hoc Tukeys
=
terms.22 Evidence suggested that where choices
test unfolded that forest was more central to the of communities were given importance, partici-
members of CCFM (M = 40.89, SD 5.57) and =
pation was higher for resource conservation. 21
ICFM (M = 38.88, SD 6.66) than that of JFM
=
People participated in a half-hearted manner when
(M= 29.14, SD 11.30). In accordance with hy-
=
external intervention undermined local choices.24
pothesis 3b, when the confounding effects of for- ICFM elicited greater peoples participation than
est types on participation were controlled, the more CCFM and JFM because of the absence of exter-
the forest was central to the lives of the members nal interference. Members of ICFM had full free-
in forest protection units, more was their direct dom in framing their institution and its rules as
and indirect participation (Table 4). per their priorities, which enhanced their social

solidarity and sense of ownership. External inter-
ference hampered these and thereby reduced par-
ticipation in CCFM and JFM. Though CCFM fol-
lowed the ICFM pattern, it elicited relatively lower
participation because of partial acceptance of ex-
ternally imposed rules and decisions by crafting
agencies. In JFM, too much state interference
worked against peoples choices and decreased
participation.
Value prioritization demonstrated an act of bal-
ancing between intra- and inter-generational needs.
Institutional and personal values like sacrificing
the present benefit, livelihood security from for-
est and avoidance of free riding were given ers are quite diverse have the weaker culture. It
more importance. For poverty-stricken forest
dependent communities, sacrificing any present
benefit for larger gains in future can be consid-
ered as the most difficult task. Members and lead-
ers of ICFM and CCFM showed more sensitivity
to this task of balancing than their counterparts
in JFM. In JFM, peoples deprived desire of self
governance was vividly expressed in the most
important institutional and personal value. The
practice of regular interaction, collective decision
making and self-govemance helped in imbibing
common values within the institution. As these
practices were more prevalent in ICFM and
CCFM, they succeeded in inculcating greater in-
stitutional values in their members than those of
JFM.
Schein 21 described the function of values in
terms of external adaptation and internal integra-
tion. In fostering external adaptation, holding the
core values of the institution influenced the mem-
bers to perform activities-contributing labour
towards forest management, attending meetings,
patrolling, monitoring, etc.-that were necessary
for survival of the institution. On internal integra-
tion, members holding same values shared cer-
tain aspects of cognitive processing, a common
system of communication and understanding that
induced interpersonal relations and positive affects.
149
Shared values or extent of value congruence found
expression in increased participation vis-A-vis
group solidarity for forest conservation.
The institutional values were more shared
among the members of ICFM and CCFM than
those of JFM. First, the rankings of important
values held by the members were close to the
rankings of their leaders in ICFM and CCFM than
in JFM. Second, the value congruence was con-
sistently higher in ICFM and CCFM than in JFM.
Institutions where members and leaders share
similar values have the stronger culture. Institu-
tions where values of the members and the lead-
can be concluded that JFM units had a number
of small cultures held by different groups of
people within the forest institution. This was con-
sistent with our observation in the field that people
belonging to different caste groups, occupations
and villages constituted the -FPC in JFM, which
was not so in case of ICFM and CCFM. In latter
cases, by and large, each FPC was confined to a
single village and comprised of homogeneous
communities and primarily agriculturalists.
For forest communities, protection of forest is
a religious duty26 and the source of livelihood in
the short and long run. ICFM and CCFM offered
greater benefits to their members and assured more
rights over forest compared to JFM. JFM offered
lesser short- and long-term benefits to its mem-
bers that dispirited them to uphold the religious
value of forest as a God to them. Irrespective of
forest types, the greater the members of forest
protection units valued forests in their personal lives,
the more they assisted in forest protection.
Forest institution acted as a collection of indi-
viduals, which tried promoting a collective cause.
When the values of the forest institution and its
members were congruent and members consid-
ered the forest as central to their lives, they partici-
pated more in the forest conservation. The extent
of value congruence and centrality to forest can
150
be enhanced (as in ICFM) emphasizing local pri-
orities, recognizing local institutions, implement-
ing local technology, conducting regular meetings
and creating awareness about institutional values.
The study has certain limitations that must be
acknowledged. While selecting the forest units,
we adopted a purposive rather than a random sam-
pling plan. The units selected for the study were
not statistical representatives of all the forest units
in eastern India. Therefore, the result should be
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1. M. Gadgil and R. Guha, This Fissured Land: An Ecologi-
cal History of India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1992); K.C. Malhotra, Linkages Between Biodiversity,
Conservation and Development: Lessons Emerging from
India, in P. Kumani, ed., Empowering Society (Madras:
The Gurukul Lutheran Theological College, 1995), 224-
35 ; G. Raju, Institutional Structures for Community
Based Conservation, in A. Kothari, N. Pathak, R.V.
Anuradha and B. Taneja, eds, Communities and Conser-
vation (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998), 58-77; M.
Sarin, From Conflict to Collaboration: Institutional Is-
sues in Community Management, in M. Poffenberger
and B. McGean, eds, Village Voices, Forest Choices: Joint
Forest Management in India (New Delhi: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, 1996), 165-209.
2. R. Guha, Forestry in British and Post-British India: An
Historical Analysis, Economic and Political Weekly,
1983, 18(44), 1882-96.
3. D. Deb and K.C. Malhotra, Peoples Participation: The
Evolution of Joint Forest Management in South West
Bengal, in S.B. Roy and A.K. Ghosh, eds, People of In-
dia : Biological and Cultural Dimensions (New Delhi:
Inter-India Publications, 1993), 329-42; M. Poffenberger,
Forest Management Partnership: Regenerating Indias
Forests (New Delhi: Ford Foundation, 1990).
4. B.M. Meglino, E.C. Ravlin and C.L. Adkins, A Work
Values Approach to Corporate Culture: A Field Test of
the Value Congruence Process and Its Relationship to
Individual Outcomes, Journal of Applied Psychology,
1989, 74(3), 424-32; B.Z. Posner and W.H. Schmidt,
Values Congruence and Differences Between the Inter-
play of Personal and Organizational Value Systems,
interpreted in relative rather than absolute terms.
Notwithstanding the limitations, we developed a
scale, identified the values and used a semi-pro-
jective measure that can be used in similar stud-
ies on forest management. To our knowledge,
researches on forest management were primarily
qualitative in nature. This study used contextual
measuring techniques and generated empirical
evidence on values for enhancing peoples par-
ticipation in community forestry.
Journal of Business Ethics, 1993, 12(5), 341-47; J.F.
Regan, M. Rokeach and J.W. Grube, Personal and Cor-
porate Values and Corporate Identification of Managers
from Several Levels of an Organization, Academic Psy-
chology Bulletin, 1982, 4 June, 345-55; D. Suar, B.
Panda and M.B. Sharan, Value Comparison, Organiza-
tional Identification and Job Satisfaction among Hospi-
tal Employees, The Creative Psychologist, 1989, 1(2),
69-80.
5. Deb and Malhotra, Peoples Participation: The
Evoluation of Joint Forest Management in South West
Bengal (n. 3 above); Malhotra, Linkages Between
Biodiversity, Conservation and Development: Lessons
Emerging from India (n. 1 above); S.B. Roy, Forest
Protection Committees in West Bengal, Economic and
Political Weekly, 1993, 27(29), 1528-30; Sarin, From
Conflict to Collaboration. Institutional Issues in Com-
munity Management (n. 1 above); B. Vira, Implement-
ing Joint Forest Management in the Field: Towards an
Understanding of the Community-Bureaucracy Inter-
face, in R. Jeffery and N. Sundar, eds, A New Moral
Economy for Indias Forests? (New Delhi: Sage Publica-
tions, 1999) 254-75.
6. World Bank, World Bank Participation Source Book
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
7. K. Chopra, C.K. Kadekodi and M.N. Murty, Participa-
tory Development: People and Common Property Re-
source (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1990); J. Molinas,
The Impact of Equality, Gender, External Assistance
and Social Capital on Local Level Cooperation, World
Development, 1998, 26(3), 413-31.
 151

8. S. White, Depoliticising Development: The Uses and 20. K. Singh, Peoples Participation in Natural Resource
Abuses of Participation, Development in Practice,
1996, Management (Anand, Gujarat: Institute of Rural Man-
6(1), 6-15. agement, Workshop Report No. 8, 1992).
9. E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of 21. J.B.P. Sinha, Work Culture in the Indian Context (New
Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge Delhi: Sage Publications, 1990), 225.
University Press, 1990); G. Raju, R. Vaghela and M.S. 22. R. Chambers and M. Leach, Trees to Meet Contingen-
Raju, Development of Peoples Institutions for Manage- cies : Savings and Security for the Rural Poor, ODI So-
ment of Forests (Ahmedabad: VIKSAT Nehru Founda- cial Forestry Network Paper, 1987, 5(a), 3-29.
tion for Development, 1993); Sarin, From Conflict to 23. M. Pimbert and J. Pretty, Diversity and Sustainability
Collaboration; Institutional Issues in Community Man- in Community-based Conservation, in A. Kothari, N.
agement (n. 1 above). Pathak, R.V. Anuradha and B. Taneja, eds, Communities
10. Raju, Vaghela and Raju, Development of Peoples Insti- and Conservation (New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1998),
tutions for Management of Forests (n. 9 above); Sarin, 58-80; T. Shah, Gains from Social Forestry: Lessons
From Conflict to Collaboration: Institutional Issues in from West Bengal, ODI Social Forestry Network Pa-
Community Management (n. 1 above). per, 1987, 5(e), 1-20; G. Shepherd, Workshop Synthe-
11. A. Khare, Community Based Conservation in India, in sis: Discussion and Outcome. ODI Social Forestry Net-
A. Kothari, N. Pathak, R.V. Anuradha and B. Taneja, work Paper, 1987, 5(g), 1-13.
eds, Communities and Conservation (New Delhi: Sage 24. Pimbert and Pretty, Diversity and Sustainability in Com-
Publications, 1998), 81-101. munity-based Conservation (n. 23 above); Shah, Gains
12. M. Rokeach, Long-range Experimental Modification from Social Forestry: Lessons from West Bengal (n. 23
of Values, Attitudes, and Behavior, American Psycholo- above).
gist, 1971, 26(5), 453-59. 25. E.H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership
13. M. Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (New York: (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1981).
Free Press, 1973). 26. Guha, Forestry in British and Post-British India: An
14. R.E. Pitts and A.G. Woodside, Examining the Structure Historical Analysis (n. 2 above).
of Personal Values and Consumer Decision Making,
Journal of Business Research, 1991, (Special Issue) Appendix
22(1), 91-93. Unrotated and Rotated Factor Loadings
15. P.F. Drucker, Management and the Worlds Work, on Items of Participation
Harvard Business Review, 1988, 66(5), 65-76.
16. W.H. Schimdt and B.Z. Posner, Managerial Values and
Expectations: The Silent Power in Personal and Orga-
nizational Life (New York: American Management As-
sociation, 1982).
17. J.E. Finegan, The Impact of Person and Organizational
Values on Organizational Commitment, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 2000,
73(2), 149-69; Meglino, Ravlin and Adkins, A Work
Values Approach to Corporate Culture: A Field Test of
the Value Congruence Process and Its Relationship to
Individual Outcomes (n. 4 above); Regan, Rokeach and
Grube, Personal and Corporate Values and Corporate
Identification of Managers from Several Levels of an
Organization (n. 4 above); Suar, Panda and Sharan,
Value Comparison, Organizational Identification and
Job Satisfaction among Hospital Employees (n. 4 above).
18. D. Ritchie,
A Strategy for Asian Forestry Development
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 1992).
19. Gadgil and Guha, This Fissured Land: An Ecological
Indian Tribes
History of India (n. 1 above); R.C. Verma,
through the Ages (New Delhi: Government of India,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, 1990) 225-28.