Jou

rn

al of R

esearch

in

Biology

Local people’s attitude towards conservation and development around

Pichavaram mangrove ecosystem, Tamil Nadu, India.

Keywords: Mangrove ecosystem, Livelihood, Attitudes, Conservation, Development.

ABSTRACT Studies in mangrove ecosystem are often focused on biological or ecological criteria and interdependency between mangroves and people is normally neglected. The situation is similar in Tamil Nadu; India which has a coastline of about 950 km. One of the major mangrove forests in Tamil Nadu is situated in Pichavaram, Cuddalore district. The present study was carried out in the seventeen hamlets, which are directly or indirectly dependent on the Pichavaram mangrove wetlands for their livelihood and survival. These seventeen hamlets consist of over 2600 households many of whom derive their principal income from fishing and related activities. Individual surveys were carried out for 10% of the households in each of the selected hamlets. Semi-structured questionnaires were used for surveys to study the attitude and perception of the community on the conservation and importance of mangrove wetlands and resources. The study was conducted to assess the awareness, attitudes and views of people dependent on the mangrove ecosystem towards conservation issues and development options. It was observed that a large percentage of the sampled population showed a positive inclination towards conservation of the ecosystem and were well aware of their responsibility towards it.

906-910 | JRB | 2013 | Vol 3 | No 3

This article is governed by the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/

licenses/by/2.0), which gives permission for unrestricted use, non-commercial, distribution and reproduction in all medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

www.jresearchbiology.com Journal of Research in Biology

An International Scientific

Research Journal

Authors:

Lakshmi Kodoth and

Ramamoorthy D.

Institution:

Department of Ecology &

Environmental Sciences,

Pondicherry University,

Puducherry.

Corresponding author:

Lakshmi Kodoth.

Email:

lakshmi.kodoth@gmail.com

Web Address: http://jresearchbiology.com/documents/RA0274.pdf.

Dates: Received: 08 Aug 2012 Accepted: 26 Aug 2012 Published: 06 May 2013

Article Citation: Lakshmi Kodoth and Ramamoorthy D. Local people’s attitude towards conservation and development around Pichavaram mangrove ecosystem, Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(3): 906-910

Journal of Research in Biology

Original Research

An International Scientific Research Journal

INTRODUCTION

The Mangrove ecosystem has been studied

extensively by scientists more in the ecological and

biological sense. During the 1980s and early 1990s, more

attention was given to research involving the human

interactions with the forested wetlands (FAO, 1985;

Hamilton et al., 1989; FAO, 1994; Cormier-Salem,

1999). Mangrove wetlands are a dominant feature of the

intertidal areas of the tropical and subtropical regions in

between 25°N and 25°S latitudes. The mangrove

ecosystem provides a number of ecological services:

provision of plant and animal products (Macnae, 1974;

Rasolofo, 1997; Spaninks and Beukering, 1997),

sediment trapping and nutrient uptake and transformation

(Furukawa et al., 1997; Hussain and Badola, 2008), they

provide detritus food for the aquatic fauna, harbour

migratory and aquatic birds, serve as spawning ground

for fishes, mussels and prawns. They also act as a natural

shield against storms and tidal waves (Kathiresan and

Rajendran, 2005).

The coastal communities are largely dependent on

the mangrove forests for firewood, timber, honey, fodder

and for its fishery resources. Most coastal communities

in the tropics are significantly dependent on the harvest

of marine and coastal resources for sustaining their

livelihoods (Kunstadter et al., 1986). The majority of

people living near the mangrove areas derive their

income predominantly from fishing and related activities.

Hence, the present study was carried out as it is essential

to understand people’s attitude and perception towards

the mangrove ecosystem as they derive their livelihood

from it; it helps us in formulating better policies and

enhances the developmental plan for the ecosystem.

Study Area

India has a coastline of 7,516 km of which Tamil

Nadu has about 950 km. Extensive mangrove wetlands

are located in two places namely, i) in Pichavaram,

Cuddalore district and ii) Muthupet in Thivarur and

Tanjore districts.

The Pichavaram mangrove wetland is located in

the northern extreme of Cauvery delta between the

Vellar and Coleroon estuaries (figure 1). Geographically,

it is located between 79°47’E longitude and 11°27’N

latitude. The Pichavaram mangrove forests have an area

of about 1,350 ha, which are colonised by 13 true

mangrove species. Rhizophora Sp and Avicennia Sp are

the predominant mangrove species present in the

Pichavaram mangrove forests. Pichavaram mangrove

wetland is also rich in its fishery resources (figure 2).

Annually about 245 tons of fishery resources are

harvested from this mangrove wetland, of which prawns

alone contribute 85% of the catch (Selvam et al., 2003).

Methods

People belonging to 17 hamlets surrounding the

Kodoth and Ramamoorthy, 2013

907 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(3): 906-910

Figure 1 Glimpse of the Pichavaram mangrove forest

Figure 2 Fishing in the mangrove backwaters

Pichavaram mangroves wetland were selected for survey.

For each selected hamlet 10% of the households were

picked up randomly for the household survey. Using

semi-structured questionnaires, information on the

demography, land use, income and occupational pattern

as well as local dependence on the mangrove resources

were gathered (Badola and Hussain, 2003; Glaser,2003) .

Few open ended questions were also included to

determine the attitude and perception of villagers

towards development and conservation issues. A total of

324 households were surveyed. The responses we got

were mostly in terms of yes, no and we don’t know.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Assess the awareness and views towards conservation

The results (Table 1) showed that majority of the

respondents i.e. 91% (n=324) were aware that

Pichavaram mangrove was as declared protected area

and this awareness was gained largely because of,

NGO’s working in that area and the forest department.

An overwhelming percentage (84%) of the local

population felt responsible towards the protection of the

mangrove ecosystem and another 76.7% are in favour of

eco-development projects in the area. Out of the 324

respondents, 67% of the people are willing to cooperate

with the forest department for the same. Only a small

percentage of people feel their rights being violated

because of the protected area status if the ecosystem.

When questioned regarding their views on

eco-development initiatives and its implementation, a

majority of the respondents (44.7%) were in favour of

the community led initiatives. 32% felt that NGO’s

should take lead in eco-development and the rest

23% felt that the government should take up

eco-developmental projects by itself ( Table 2).

The importance of the mangrove forests to the

local population was emphasized when a majority of

people were against cutting down of the forests. A

majority of the respondents (71%) felt that more

mangrove plantations need to be carried out, while

28.4% felt that the present conditions of the mangrove

forests were good (Table 3).

Kodoth and Ramamoorthy, 2013

Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(3): 906-910 908

Table 1: Attitude of people towards Pichavaram Mangrove Ecosystem and conservation (n= 324)

Questions Yes (%) No (%) Don’t Know (%)

Are you aware that Pichavaram Mangrove Ecosystem is declared

as Protected area? 91 9 -

Do you feel any sense of responsibility for the protection of the

ecosystem? 84 13.8 2.2

Do you feel your rights have been violated after the declaration of

PA? 11.9 80.5 7.6

Do you face any problem because of PA? 15.8 78.6 5.6

Are you in favour of the implementation of an ecodevelopment

project? 76.7 15.3 8

Would you like to co-operate with the forest department with regard

to the ecodevelopment project? 67 23 10

Table 2: View of respondents towards

Eco-Development itiatives (n = 324)

Views Frequency Percentage

Want through govt.

initiative 75 23.1

Want through

Community initiative 145 44.7

Want through NGO

initiative 104 32

Table 3: View of local people towards various

management alternatives (n = 324)

Management Alternatives Responses (%)

Forests should be cut and land used

for other purposes 0.6

Current situation of protecting the

forests is good 28.4

Increase in mangrove plantations

needed 71

The findings in this study are similar to that of

the study in Bitarkanika mangrove ecosystem in Orissa

(Badola and Hussain, 2003) which shows that the

villagers are well aware of their responsibility to the

ecosystem and willing to participate in the conservation

efforts of both the government and NGO’s.

Developmental Options

Recently, eco tourism has been promoted to a

large extent in Pichavaram mangrove forests. Majority of

the respondents (76%) were in favour of developing eco

tourism as it will improve job opportunities for the local

population. Shrimp farms are not favoured in the area as

83% of the responses were against setting up of such

farms. This is primarily due to the fact that shrimp farms

in the area are the reason for increase in salinity of the

canal water (Table 4).

Ecological functions and values identified by local

community

The respondents were given a list of ecological

functions to find out how much they were aware of the

functions and its direct or indirect importance in their

livelihoods.

Table 5 shows ranking of use values, 76% gave

highest ranking to contribution of mangroves towards

fishing. 63% gave agriculture as their second preference.

Incase of ranking ecological functions performed by

the Pichavaram mangrove ecosystem, 77.8% of the

responses favoured Tsunami/cyclone mitigation. 67.2%

gave second preference to nutrient cycling (Table 6).

The results show that the respondents were aware

of both the direct and indirect benefits of the mangrove

ecosystem. It is evident from the results that people value

the uses or function which more beneficial to them in

their day today lives.

CONCLUSION

The results showed that in general people have a

positive attitude towards conservation and are aware of

their responsibility in sustaining these mangrove forests.

The socio economic and market conditions influence the

people’s attitude towards the resources. Eco

developmental plans were in favour with the local

population since it will be helpful in formulating

sustainable policies for ecosystem. The promotion of eco

tourism in the area had a largely positive response hence

it should be capitalised on to improve local economy.

Inclusion of the local people in decision making process

can lead to successful management of the Pichavaram

mangrove ecosystem.

REFERENCE

Badola R and Hussain SA. 2003. Valuation of the

Bhitarkanika mangrove ecosystem for ecological security

and sustainable resource use. Study report. Wildlife

Institute of India, Dehra Dun.

Kodoth and Ramamoorthy, 2013

909 Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(3): 906-910

Table 5: Ranking of the use values in Percentage

(n=324)

Use values Rank 1 (%) Rank 2 (%) Rank 3 (%)

Fishing 76 18 6

Agriculture 26 63 11

Tourism 35 56 9

Table 6: Percentage ranking of various functions

(n=324)

Ecological

functions

Rank 1

(%)

Rank 2

(%)

Rank 3

(%)

Fish 59.4 34.3 6.3

Aesthetic 38 59 3

Tsunami/cyclone

mitigation 77.8 22.2 0

Nutrient 32.2 67.2 0.6

Table 4: View of local people towards various developmental options (n = 324)

Queries Yes (%) No (%) Don’t know(%)

Are you in favour of developing eco tourism in the area 76 16 8

Are you in favour of shrimp farms 8 83 9

Has Shrimp farms been useful to you? (n=14) 47 46 7

Cormier-Salem MC. 1999. The Mangrove: an area to

be cleared…for social scientists. Hydrobiologia. 413:

135-142.

FAO. 1985. Mangrove management in Thailand,

Malaysia and Indonesia. FAO Environment Paper 4,

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations, Rome.

FAO. 1994. Mangrove forest management guidelines.

FAO Forestry Paper 117, Food and Agriculture

Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Glaser M. 2003. Interrelations between mangrove

ecosystem, local economy and social sustainability in

Caete Estuary, North Brazil. Wetland Ecology and

Management. 11:265-272.

Furukawa K, Wolanski E and Mueller H. 1997.

Currents and sediment transport in mangrove forests.

Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 44:301-310.

Hamilton LS, Dixon JA and Miller GO. 1989.

Mangrove forests: an undervalued resource of the land

and of the sea. In: Borgese EM, Ginsburg N, Morgan JR.

(Eds.), Ocean Yearbook 8. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago. 254-288.

Hussain SA and Badola R. 2008. Valuing mangrove

ecosystem services: linking nutrient retention function of

mangrove forests to enhanced agroecosystem production.

Wetlands Ecology and Management. 16:441-450.

Kathiresan K and Rajendran N. 2005. Coastal

mangrove forests mitigated tsunami. Estuarine, Coastal

and Shelf Science. 65:601-606.

Kunstadter P, Bird ECF and Sabhasri S. (Eds.). 1986.

Man in the Mangroves. United Nations University,

Tokyo.

Macnae W. 1974. Mangrove forest and fisheries. FAO/

UNDP Indian Ocean Fishery Programme. Indian Ocean

Fishery Commission. Publication IOFCDev. 74:34-35.

Rasolofo MV. 1997. Use of mangroves by traditional

fishermen in Madagascar. Mangroves Salt Marshes.

1:243-253.

Selvam V, Ravichandran KK, Gnanappazham L and

Navamuniyammal M. 2003. Assessment of

community-based restoration of Pichavaram mangrove

wetland using remote sensing data. Current Science.

85:6,794-798.

Spaninks F and Beukering PV. 1997. Economic

Valuation of Mangrove Ecosystems: Potential and

Limitations. CREED Working 14.

Kodoth and Ramamoorthy, 2013

Journal of Research in Biology (2013) 3(3): 906-910 910

Submit your articles online at www.jresearchbiology.com

Advantages

Easy online submission Complete Peer review Affordable Charges Quick processing Extensive indexing You retain your copyright

submit@jresearchbiology.com

www.jresearchbiology.com/Submit.php.