Dr Mandal , there could be very diversified factors , starting from demography-induced pressure on cultivable  land to negative consequences of climate change , especially when you add socioeconomic factors , it becomes really voluminous. whatever vagaries , we are now witnessing , either in terms of lack of resilience in soil health to support fodder , fuel , food or offer ecological services in term of trapping the carbon dioxide   to lessen the negative consequences of climate change . Why , of late , so legitimate and so well knit society -forest nexus has disturbed to the extent , that its effect has  such a cascading effect on agriculture , monsoon-driven rains , livestocks...so on ..

I believe that Dr. Srivastava's observation is entirely valid.  He is asking..'Where do you intend to draw the line between the relevant and the irrelevant... ex ante?'.  For social scientists this is almost the most important question which can be asked.  The most important question arises once that one has been answered. That most important question is 'Why were those limits to the study chosen?'. 

Physical scientists, in setting up a study face similar questions. But for them the answer is fairly simple... the reasons are usually also physical. Most often they would be cost constraints or technical constraints and whatever they are they would be published as caveats to the observations obtained and to the conclusions drawn. And their studies will be repeated by others to provide validation.

Social scientists do not have the luxury of methods which allow repeated experimentation and observation.  Social effects are transient and the material, people, and communities change constantly.  Even while they are being studied.  Causes of behaviour of a certain type cannot be assumed to be of a certain class simply because they are either stated or appear to be so 'proximate'.  Many factors combine within a person's mind... from near and very far.. consciously and unconsciously.  And intended results are almost always followed, or accompanied, by unintended results.... as in the 'cascading effects' Dr. Srivastava mentions.

The 'downstream' (pun not intended!) effects that he mentions happen to be associated with his main field of study.  Similarly for myself, as somebody very concerned with the historical socio-economic contexts of the present in each context in which it is observed, what immediately comes to mind as a probable major ultimate cause of the conflict in the areas that you have identified can be identified from the commonality of attributes that they share at a broader societal level.

That ultimate cause, would from my perspective, be expected to lie beyond the obvious and proximate fact that their is increasing population pressure upon those agriculturally marginal areas of land and the demands for, and actual, encroachment of those areas to satisfy immediate needs of rural populations to feed themselves or provide a cash living.  What lies beyond 'encroachment' in the present socio-political realm in India which puts pressure on rural populations to consider encroaching on these interfaces?  From here in Europe I can safely question, with great vigour, the role of state and existing large owners of land in pursuing an aggressive programme of 'Enclosure' of 'common' land or that which has no formal title established within the cadestral systems established before 1948 and which have been built upon since.

From what I hear, to extend your study to include this very likely factor, considering the histories of rural population unrest that similar 'movements' created periodically in Europe over the past 1,000 years, is likely to be a quite 'unsafe' exercise on your part.

So we return to Dr. Srivastava.  But in rather more pointed phrasing. 

"Where do you draw the line between the alternatives...    academic integrity and personal survival?"

• Especially in South Kalimantan forest, Indonesia, the main factor conflict in forest is using of forest land. Mainly, all of forest area already claimed by local people as their own land. They already life for long long time a go in that forest area before that forest area stated as the government land. The second thing is the natural resources that available, that is forest and mineral. The third is level income in that village near forest area.

This matter raises back into clear view the issue which every scientist seeking 'useful' knowledge faces.  That issue is to discern what is meant by 'useful' and by whom is that judgement validated.  And then to be certain that the values and goals of the institutions giving legitimacy to that definition of 'useful' are themselves aligned with those that the society as a whole believes them to be.  Or do those social institutions or their representatives, even if they are legally mandated to represent themselves as representative of the views or authority of that society, actually represent as 'societal' values and goals ones which are actually sectarian and self-serving of their own interests and exploitative of those of the general population?  And therefore morally and ethically illegitimate.

All this over the forest-society interface conflict nexus? 

Remember.. "Rome was not built in a day".  It was built out of small daily encroachments and enclosures of the rights of non-Romans, over a period of centuries.  And still it collapsed.

Enjoy your day... the sun is shining out there!  Somewhere.

Robin

The development of society conjunctively with people's needs grow at a rate higher than the regenerative capacity of the forest after exploitation.

At a most basic level some people simply don't like trees and find forests threatening for cultural and other reasons.  In the United Kingdom, a developed country with what you would hope is a reasonably educated population, I've know opposition to reforestation projects using native trees for all sorts of spurious reasons.  It's not that the projects are carried out without extensive consultation with local communities and other interested parties either.  

At the other extreme, I've known vociferous objections to essential forestry management work, once again after extensive consultation has been carried out.  The National Trust faced this problem a few years ago at a woodland site near to where I live.  The trust was felling selected trees in a planted woodland, to create a more even aged and natural structure, the furore in the local newspapers was ridiculous.  

So with any forestry projects, ensure that you do plenty of consultation with local communities and other interested parties, but most importantly retain evidence that you have consulted.  

My response is from a different angle to the other replies, but I hope it is useful.  

Thanks to all respondents. Regards. Sarada

Beyond the well-known drivers, land tenure is often forgotten. Who owns and uses the resource and is able and willing to protect its property? A case from the tropics is attached. 

Article What Drives Conversion of Tropical Forest in Carrasco Provin...

Various factors are responsible for the same.

However differ with area and region also. Five different pathways has been discussed in the literature ranging from economic, social and policy issues. However our new study has shown some new insight and may be termed as agriculture and industrialisation led employability pathways are the contributor of the conflict.

Much that has been said seems helpful. From a western forestry and social work perspective, most conflicts between society and forests are values based conflicts at the core of the discord. The fact that economic values dominate and drive most decisions in the west is obvious, so is the depletion of biodiversity. However, other values having to do with family, forest legacy, community and our personal, emotional and spiritual connections to land and forests are largely dismissed as irrelevant resulting in an economic-extraction values orientation, one that excludes and dismisses forest connections to people, families and community.

While the attached white paper does not directly address the complexity of your situation, it does provide an example of the values compatibility between forestry and tourism in forest rich regions. The second case-study summary highlights the compatibility factors and the community benefits of  combining both forestry and tourism in economic development strategy.

What we have found as most intriguing in this case-study is the key role that effective, unifying community leadership plays in bringing multiple  development values forward into community development activity.

Roger Merchant, University of Maine Extension Emeritus                                    BS Forestry, MSW Social Work and Community Development    

Hello Sarada. I send information in Pdf and a link to a book published for IUFRO (FORESTS AND SOCIETY – RESPONDING TO GLOBAL DRIVERS OF CHANGE) , which will serve you to solve your doubt. Regards

http://www.iufro.org/science/special/wfse/forests-society-global-drivers/

Very insightful answers have already been provided. Just to add, that this may vary from region/continents to the other, nevertheless, the underlying factor is the Value attach to the forest.  

At a psychoanalytic stand point there is evidence that science knowledge is unable to control the ancestral belief of the terrific power of the forest. The economic aspects of the social solutions are resulting in a unconscious aggressive behavior against the trees as responsible of human weakness.

In few words seems likely the social-forestry conflict is acting as projective psychological  mechanism involving scientist and stakeholders.

Shrimp ponds may be currently the largest driver of mangrove decline in Asia and South America and on the rise in Africa. In the ocean, like on land, tenure and land use zoning jurisdiction or rather the lack thereof is obviously a factor.

Article Shrimp pond effluent dominates foliar nitrogen in disturbed ...

Article Eutrophication of mangroves linked to depletion of foliar an...

@Hein:  It might be useful to add to your list of observed pressures in the marine interfaces papers, which I have come across but do not have links for, that deal with the bad effect of crustacean and fish farming in pontoon structures off the south and eastern coast of Spain where sea grass beds are threatened by their effluent.

@Roger: to quote from your comment "What we have found as most intriguing in this case-study is the key role that effective, unifying community leadership plays in bringing multiple  development values forward into community development activity." This brings to mind a question, arriving in my Q&A list today, which asks how to institutionalise the climate change goals into the actions and policies of a community.

It is worth remembering that institutions are "“The patterns of living and social organizations that carry out the values and goals of a society” and as such are the very stuff of "effective, unifying community leadership".  Sadly ecologists and managers of our community resources are typically not mandated to work towards the promotion of what in the end is 'effective local governance structures', it being the realm, supposedly, of those actually commissioning the ecologists' work and one in which they themselves are all too often unwilling to accept, or are blind to, the existence of deficiencies... and will likely end the ecologists'  contracts if they have the temerity to point this out and worse, try to educate them in what the job and its duties that they have been elected or appointed into actually entails.

What are the main factors for Forest-Society conflict? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_are_the_main_factors_for_Forest-Society_conflict#view=5719d8ff615e2723011fcf52 [accessed Apr 22, 2016]."

Well, perhaps a case study may be helpful for you to obtain more detailed exploratory info. Besides, you may also widen your scope of literature search by looking at human-nature-interaction, instead of forest-society conflict, so that you may gain more insightful idea from other ecosystems as well. The attached documents are related to human-nature interaction of lowland forest in Malaysia. Hope that they are useful to your study.  

 There are many factor forest society conflict in India. The BCFT definition of Forest management is application of scientific, technical and economic principals of forestry while in India social principles of forestry are applied. We manged our forests  ( national forests) for society and not commercial. therefore in Indian forest of any type Mangroove, hill forests etc. has social aspects in its management and as their are many dimensions to adopt from ethnoforestry to other social forestry approach, JFM etc. Indian society relationship with different forest depends not only for tangible goods & services but intangible benefits a and ethos attached to them. 

 Thanks and regards to all respondents.

The economic value of forests is main factor behind conflict. Forests are the source of fuel, fodder, timber, gums, resins, fibres etc. for which they are exploited. Shifting cultivation is the other factor in which tribal population who do not have their own permanent land and resources clear the forests for agriculture.

"Two Ways of Knowing" illustrates ways of knowing our relationship to nature. Scientist and Native American, Robin Wall Kimmerer, elevates this for those who wish to see that "part of the problem is the cultural view of land, primarily as individual property, rather than as shared commons. Land is associated with rights; it's my right to destroy this piece of land, tear up these wildflowers, and pour this concrete because I own it. But I think about land, not as a place you have rights to, but as a place for which you have responsibility. You have duties, obligations. And if you don't fulfill them, you're in for trouble"...

The whole article can be found at this literary gem ... http://thesunmagazine.org/issues/484/two_ways_of_knowing, ..... Roger Merchant

The phrase forest versus society is somewhat unfortunate. The conflicts may be between owners of forest(land) and holders of forest use right. Both within "society", although sometime of different ethnicity. Therefore the (forest land ownership and/or use rights need to be established (attached) and registered. This has been done in continental post-Napoleonic Europe for national land cadastres and is currently in progress in several African countries. The process of registration, village meetings, demarcation on the ground with villagers and local authorities and adjudication seems similar across centuries and continents.    

The demography-driven conversion of forest, as mentioned in preceding answers, needs context. Only when population growth takes place in a context of stagnant agricultural productivity and absence of non-agrarian employment, will forest be converted to farms. In most of Europe we have been in the reverse process for half a century of increasing population combined with increasing or stable forest extent (attached).

In the conflicts mentioned I miss the conflict between recreational hunting and commercial timber uses as in parts of Europe and Africa. High densities of huntable game and timber trees do not go well together (e.g. bark stripping by game). This may be an argument for hunting and logging rights to be in the same hands. A recurrent issue is that the use/ownership rights of valuable commodities; ivory) are hard to protect against third parties in poor peripheral areas say where the value of a tree or tusk is a multiple of the annual income per person.

Article What Drives Conversion of Tropical Forest in Carrasco Provin...

Article The living commons of West Tyrol, Austria: Lessons for land ...

Shifting cultivation ( Slash and burn method of cultivation ) in many parts  of the world is still proactively operational , where forest lands are first casuality , a glaring example of forest-society conflict dictated by human needs of multiple nature..