Assistant Professor of Geography, Vivekananda Global University, Jaipur, Rajasthan
JournalRPIMJ
Volume / Issue2 / 2
Pages39–49
Published03 Apr 2026
Paper IDRPIMJ22AJ26007
Views / Downloads29 / 11
Article summary
Abstract
The governance of natural resources remains among the most pressing challenges
in contemporary environmental management, particularly in developing nations where
rural communities depend directly on forests, water bodies, fisheries, and rangeland
ecosystems for subsistence and livelihood. This paper critically synthesizes a substantial
body of literature on Community-Based Natural Resource Management, investigating
theoretical underpinnings, empirical case evidence, enabling conditions, and structural
barriers that determine the effectiveness of participatory approaches. Drawing on
Ostrom’s institutional design principles, Social Capital Theory, and the Socio-Ecological
Systems (SES) framework, the paper argues that community participation constitutes
not merely an instrumental mechanism for resource conservation but a fundamentally
rights-based governance imperative that re-centres local agency in environmental
decision-making. Through a systematic narrative review of peer-reviewed studies
published many journals (2010–2024), the analysis reveals that participatory
governance produces measurable gains in resource sustainability, social equity, and
institutional resilience when underpinned by secure land and resource tenure,
transparent benefit-sharing mechanisms, horizontal accountability structures, and
meaningful inclusion of marginalized actors—particularly women and indigenous
communities. On the contrary, pseudo-participation, elite capture, institutional
disintegration, and insufficient devolution of authority consistently weaken CBNRM
outcomes. The paper advances an integrated Participatory Governance Effectiveness
(PGE) framework that reconciles process legitimacy with outcome accountability, and
offers evidence-informed policy recommendations for strengthening community participation across diverse biomes and governance contexts.
Keywords
natural resource managementparticipatory governancecommon pool
resourcessocial capitalsustainable developmentindigenous knowledgedevolution
Citation record
How to cite this article
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav (2026). Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge. ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav. “Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge.” ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, 2026, pp. 39–49. https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav. “Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge.” ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal 2, no. 2 (2026): 39–49. https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav (2026) ‘Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge’, ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal, 2(2), pp. 39–49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007.
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav, “Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge,” ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 39–49, 2026. https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007.
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav. Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge. ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal. 2026;2(2):39–49. https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007.
Rohit Kumar, Kanhaiya Lal Gupta, Puneet Yadav. Community Participation in Natural Resource Management: An Emerging Challenge. ResearchPro International Multidisciplinary Journal 2026, 2 (2), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.70650/rpimj.2026v2i200007.
The author(s) declare that no specific funding was received for this work.
Conflict of Interest
The author(s) declare that they have no conflicts of interest relevant to this work.
Ethical Approval
The author(s) declare that ethical approval was not applicable to this work.
Data Availability
The author(s) declare that data sharing is not applicable, as no datasets were generated or analysed for this work.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception, research, preparation, review and final approval of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work.
AI-use Declaration
AI tools were used only for language editing. The author(s) reviewed and verified the final content and remain responsible for its accuracy and integrity.
Editorial record
Publisher's Note
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The views, content, and claims expressed in this article are solely the responsibility of the author(s). The publisher and editors accept no legal liability for any errors, copyright infringement, or loss or damage arising from its use.
Adhikari, B., & Lovett, J. C. (2006). Institutions and collective action: Does heterogeneity matter in community-based resource management? Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 426–445. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00220380600576942
Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development, 29(10), 1623–1648. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0305-750X(01)00066-3
Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E. (2001). Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29(4), 485–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0032329201029004002.
Béné, C., Belal, E., Baba, M. O., Ovie, S., Raji, A., Malasha, I., Njaya, F., Andi, M. N., Russell, A., & Neiland, A. (2009). Power struggle, dispute and alliance over local resources: Analysing ‘democratic’ decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa inland fisheries. World Development, 37(12), 1935–1950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2009.05.003
Boelens, R., Hoogesteger, J., Swyngedouw, E., Vos, J., & Wester, P. (2018). Hydro-social territories: A political ecology perspective. Water International, 41(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02508060.2016.1134898
Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The new tyranny? Zed Books.
Cox, M., Arnold, G., & Tomás, S. V. (2010). A review of design principles for community-based natural resource management. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 38. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03704-150438
Kumar, S., & Kant, S. (2007). Exploded logit modeling of stakeholders’ preferences for multiple forest values. Forest Policy and Economics, 9(5), 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.02.001
Ostrom, E. (2011). Reflections on ‘some unsettled problems of irrigation.’ American Economic Review, 101(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.1.49
Peet, R., & Watts, M. (1996). Liberation ecologies: Environment, development, social movements. Routledge.
Peluso, N. L., & Lund, C. (2011). New frontiers of land control: Introduction. Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(4), 667–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.607692
Pender, J., & Fafchamps, M. (2006). Land lease markets and agricultural efficiency in Ethiopia. Journal of African Economies, 15(2), 251–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejk007
Pomeroy, R., Parks, J., Mrakovcich, K. L., & LaMonica, C. (2007). Factors influencing ecosystem based fisheries management: A global assessment. Marine Policy, 31(5), 503–510. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.marpol.2007.03.010
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. ESRC Methods Programme.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Ullah, A., Bavorova, M., Shah, A. A., & Kandel, G. P. (2023). Community participation in development programs: Key lessons from the billion trees afforestation project (BTAP). Environmental Science & Policy, 150, 103581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2023.103581
World Bank. (2021). Forests for development: Policy, institutions, and markets. World Bank Group.
