


































In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

 

African Journal of Environmental Economics and Management ISSN 2375-0707 Vol. 6 (1), pp. 374-383, 
January, 2018. Available online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 
 

Full Length Research Paper 
 

A study of the potentials of traditional natural 
resources management for biodiversity conservation 

 
*Jagdish Bihari Gangadhar, Manmohan Khan and Akshay  Ram Premji 

 
Department of Zoology, L. S. M. Government Post Graduate College, Pithoragarh, Uttarakhand –262502, India.  

Email: jagdish.bihari@gmail.com  
 

Accepted 18 August, 2017 
 

Social taboos exist in invariably all cultures throughout the world, and represent a class of informal 
institutions, where traditional, religiously governed norms or taboo system define the human behaviour. 
These taboos remain the prime factor guiding their conduct towards the exploitation of the natural 
resources. However, the singular role played by these informal systems of taboo in conservation of 
biodiversity has not been given its due importance. The present paper attempts to render forth the salient 
aspect of conservation borne out of the taboo system in practice surrounding the sacred natural sites, 
principally the sacred forests, in the state of Uttarakhand, central Himalaya. The study brings forth the fact 
that although the potential of traditional natural resources management for biodiversity conservation vis a 
vis the institution of taboo within the state remains enormous, the sustainability of these practices however 
is seriously threatened. In fact, the dilution of the traditional beliefs and associated taboos, principally 
borne out of the western type education, along with social and economic factors, underpinning traditional 
natural resources management practices were found to be the greatest threat to the sustainability of these 
practices. There is thus an urgent need to investigate local perceptions of forest space and landscape, 
biodiversity conservation and traditional beliefs, and their significance for natural resources management, 
towards understanding the changing values of local people in relation to traditional protected areas, such 
as sacred forests. 
 
Key words: Conservation, culture, informal institutions, sacred forests, social taboos, traditional knowledge-based 
systems. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
The term ‘Taboo’ is derived from the Polynesian word 
‘tapu’, and is defined as a ‘prohibition or a ban’. Social 
taboos represent good examples of informal institutions 
(North, 1990), which are based on cultural norms that do 
not depend on government for either promulgation or 
enforcement (Posner and Rasmusen, 1999). Institutions 
are here defined as the rules and norms that structure 
human interaction, including their enforcement charac-
teristics and sanctioning mechanisms (North, 1990), and 
include any form of shared constraint that human beings 
devise to shape their daily interactions and transactions. 
Such institutions are decentralized and self-enforced by a 
community, where no external authority is available to 
guarantee that social actors will abide to rules and 
procedures (Knight, 1992). Formal institutions, in contrast, 

 
 

 
are rules that human beings devise, such as written rules, 
laws and constitutions and are highly associated with the 
structural complexity of industrialized nations and their 
division of labour (North, 1990). The traditional natural 
resources management are infact shaped around the 
local rules and regulations (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1995; Abayie, 
1998), most often enshrined in religious or cultural beliefs 
and superstitions, and enforced by taboos, which dare 
not be infringed upon, and thus making the whole 
exercise, an effective one.  

Informal institutions, such as taboos, have largely been 
neglected in conservation designs, where park protection 
has been the major approach for protecting biodiversity 
(McNeely, 1993), and thus it is strongly believed that the 
same could play an active role in nature conservation 



Jagdish et al.     375 
 
 

 
(Murphree, 1994). In fact, very often, it has been 
observed that social taboos may be highly adaptive from 
an ecological perspective and which contributes to 
biodiversity conservation (Colding and Folke, 2001); that 
it often applies to certain sets of natural resources that 
are particularly vulnerable to overexploitation (Colding 
and Folke, 2001).  

Anthropologists have ascribed various social functions 
to taboos: (i) They function to distinguish between sacred 
and profane entities in a culture (Durkheim, 1915); (ii) 
Relate to animist and magical belief systems (Frazer, 
1922); (iii) Serve psychological ends (Malinowski, 1922); 
and even (iv) Serve ecological adaptations (Rappaport, 
1968). Infact, it may be difficult to distinguish among 
ecological, social, or religious origins and functions of 
taboos (Colding and Folke, 2001). Taboo often apply to 
certain sets of natural resources, which are particularly 
vulnerable to overexploitation, and thus the imposition of 
temporal taboos regulates access to resource(s) on either 
a sporadic, weekly, monthly or even seasonal basis 
(Colding and Folke, 2001).  

The efficacy of the social taboos becomes all the more 
conspicuous, when one encounters yet another tradi-
tional institution, the institution of sacred natural sites. For 
example, when a sacred forest cover located above the 
precincts of the village, is zealously guarded, with taboo 
not to infringe upon or make resource use from it, and 
thus the perennial water flow (with its source being the 
conspicuous sacred forest lying above) and its associated 
benefits for the very sustenance of the village folks, need 
not be exemplified further. In fact, amongst most ethnic 
groups, there exist beliefs that regard the majority of 
water bodies as abode of deities, and thus taboo against 
making recurrent visits to the source of the same (read 
the sacred forests) were effective in protecting these 
sources, especially those that served as potable water 
sources for a community or group of communities, with 
major examples being offered by the sacred forests of 
Hariyali Devi, Madhkeshwar, Maanthaat, Shyama Devi, 
Jal Devi, etc (Table 1). Infact, defilement of the water 
remains one of the greatest sins, as per the religious 
scripts, brought forth by the natives. And hence, the 
present study delves into the social taboo system in 
practice surrounding the sacred natural sites.  

The ‘sacred natural site’ here is defined as a reserved 
space, established by a community, a group of people or 
an individual, following the conventions based on specific 
phenomena and requiring the respect of engagements 
taken at this place in order to satisfy the spiritual, cultural 
and socio-political needs while focusing on the harmony 
and wellbeing of the native community, as well as of the 
whole humanity (Kamga-Kamdem, 2008). The above 
definition most appropriately brings forth the salient 
aspect of the ‘institution of sacred sites’, that is, the mode 
of its establishment, the people entitled to this purpose, 
the beneficiaries, the very objectives of establishment, 
and the management rules that govern, principally the 
 

 
 
 
 
resource use from the sacred forests. 
 
 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
 
The knowledge based-systems methodology for acquisition of local 
ecological knowledge suggested by Sinclair and Walker (1999) was 
adapted, involving knowledge collection from a small sample of 
deliberately chosen individuals, thought to be knowledgeable by 
other villagers about the domain of interest. The knowledge was 
collected through repeated, structured (questionnaire-based) 
interviews, with information being sought as regards the location of 
sacred natural sites (SNS), features related, local perception about 
the sacredness of the SNS, and management (inclusive of caste 
dynamics). Priorly, the informants were given a brief background of 
the subject area of interest (viz., the concept of the sacred natural 
sites), in their native tongues, as and when required, so that the 
requisite information could be gathered. Since the domain of study, 
that is taboo system surrounding the sacred sites was governed by 
dominant castes, principally Brahmins and the Rajputs, with lower 
castes relegated to carrying out profunctionary functions/tasks, it 
was inevitable that interviews be conducted across the different 
class of people, so that an overall picture of the taboo system could 
emerge, and hence, efforts were made to interview a minimum of 6 
- 8 persons across the class/caste divide per site/village, and thus, 
altogether 168 sacred natural sites (henceforth SNS), including 75 
sacred forests, 74 sacred groves, 10 water bodies and 9 pastures, 
and extending across the nine hilly districts of the state were 
covered for the study of existent taboo system (Figures 1 and 2), 
and a total of 1262 informants interviewed. However, for myriad 
reasons (say, in most of the sites, the population was wholly 
constituted of one, or at times only two castes-Brahmins and the 
Rajputs, and hence, in such cases, the resource management 
specialists-the leaders and the wise people, that is, mostly the 
elderly folks were consulted. 
 
 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
 
Traditional natural resources management system in 
practice in Uttarakhand, can be classified into the 
following broad categories: (i) Protection of particular 
ecosystems or habitats (such as sacred groves and 
forests); (ii) Protection of particular animals or plant 
species (as totem or tabooed species); and (iii) 
Regulation of the exploitation of particular natural 
resource (such as a closed season for resource 
harvesting). However, the taboo system surrounding the 
sacred natural sites has been dealt as per classification 
of social taboos (Colding and Folke, 2001), principally 
into (i) Segment taboos, (ii) Temporal taboos, (iii) Method 
taboos, (iv) Life history taboos, (v) Specific-species 
taboos. 
 
 
Segment taboos 
 
The following group of taboo applies when a cultural 
group bans the utilization of particular species for specific 
time periods for human individuals of a particular age, 
sex, or social status (Colding and Folke, 2001). Thus, 
certain segments of a human population may be 



   376     Afr. J.  Envir. Econ. Manage. 
 

Table 1. Some of the selected sacred natural sites with conservational value
#
 (Negi, 2010).  

 

    
 

District Area Floral 
Dominant species  

S. NoSacred natural siteNature 
diversity 

 

 (ha)  
  

1 Brijkang, Ralam Pasture 60 
 

2 Raghunath, Tola Forest 5 
 

3 Suraj Kund, Milam Water body 40 
 

4 Bhujani, Martoli Forest 12 
 

5 Dharmbun Sem, 
Pasture 105  

Laspa  

   
 

6 Hya Roshey, 
Pasture 40  

Napalchhu  

   
 

7 Dhan ki kheti, 
Pasture 145  

Jyolingkong  

   
 

8 Nigalfu, Sipu Pasture 120 
 

 
74 Picrorhiza kurrooa, Juniperus communis  
* Abies pindrow   

78 Rhododendron anthopogon, Danthonia sp.  
- Betula  utilis, Rhododendron campanulatum  

 
73 Dactylorhiza hatagirea, Carum carvi 
 

Euphrasia himalayica, Cicerbita violoides,  
42 Polygonum viviparum, Bupleurum sp., 

Potentilla cuneifolia, P. atrisanguinea  
Euphrasia himalayica, Polygonum viviparum, 

34 
Potentilla argyrophylla  
Betula  utilis, Juniperus communis, Aster 
stracheyi, Euphrasia himalayica, Potentilla 

37 
cuneifolia, P. argyrophylla, Geranium 
grevilleanum  

 9 Bombasing, Tedang Forest 5 - Abies pindrow, Betula utilis, Pinus wallichiana. 
 

 
10 Sangfa Fu, Baun Pasture 20 48 Juniperus communis, Rhododendron 

 

 anthopogon  

      
 

Pithoragarh      Betula alnoides, Cedrus deodara, Celtis 
 

     

australis, Lyonia ovalifolia, Myrica esculenta,  

      
 

 11 Kokila Devi, Kanaar Forest > 20 sq km 73 Pinus roxburghii, Quercus  leucotrichophora, 
 

      Q. semecarpiflora, Rhododendron arboreum, 
 

      R. campanulatum, Taxus baccata 
 

      Q. leucotrochophora, Q. dilatata, Alnus 
 

 12 Hokara Devi, Hokra Forest 5-6 - nepaulensis, Aesculus indica, Pinus 
 

      wallichiana, 
 

 
13 Thal Kedar Forest 15 - Q. leucotrochophora, Q. dilatata, Myrica nagi, 

 

 Rhododendron arboreum  

      
 

 14 Lateshwar Forest 4-5 - Quercus leucotrichophora 
 

 
15 Dhawaj Forest 15 - Q. leucotrochophora, Q. dilatata, Myrica nagi, 

 

 Rhododendron arboreum  

      
 

      Q. leucotrochophora, Rhododendron 
 

 16 Ghandhura Forest 20 - arboreum, Q. semecarpifolia, Thamnocalamus 
 

      sp. Syzygium sp. 
 

 17 Syangse gabla Forest 3-4 - Abies pindrow 
 

 18 Nakuleshwar Forest 3-4 - Quercus leucotrichophora 
 

 19 Jagatnath Forest 4-5 - Diploknema sp., Ficus sp, 
 

 20 Nagarjuna Forest 2 - Acacia sp. 
 

 
21 Jal Devi Forest 2 - Quercus leucotrichophora, Myrica esculenta, 

 

 Rhododendron arboreum  

      
 

 22 Byandhura Forest 5 sq km - Tropical mixed forest 
 

 
23 Mallareshwar Forest - - Cedrus deodara, Pinus roxburghii, Myrica 

 

 esculenta, Rhododendron arboreum  

      
 

Champawat      Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. semecarpifolia,  

       

 
24 Gorakhnath Forest 5 sq km - Q. glauca, Symplocus chinensis, Lyonia 

 

 ovalifolia, Cedrus deodara, Myrica esculenta,  

      
 

      Pyrus pashia, Rhododendron arboreum 
 

      Cedrus deodara, Quercus semecarpifolia, Q. 
 

Almora 25 Vishnu Forest 16 - leucotrichophora, Aesculus indica, Ficus spp., 
 

      Myrica esculenta, Rhododendron arboreum 
 

  
Shihyayi/    Quercus semecarpifolia, Q. leucotrichophora, 

 

 

26 Forest 5-6 - Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta,  

 
Shyama Devi  

     Rhododendron arboreum  

      
 

 
27 Aeri Dhura Forest 8-10 - Quercus leucotrichophora, Myrica esculenta, 

 

 Rhododendron arboreum  

      
 



         
 

Table 1. Contd.        
 

         
 

 
District S. No Sacred natural site Nature Area Floral 

Dominant species 
 

 

 

(ha) diversity  
 

       
 

       Quercus semecarpifolia, Q. leucotrichophora, 
 

 
Almora 28 Anyar Bunga Aeri Forest 10-12 - Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta,  

 

 Rhododendron arboreum, Anyar, Alnus  
 

        
 

       nepaulensis.  
 

       Rhododendron arboreum, Myrica esculenta, 
 

  29 Sidh Baba Forest 10-12 - Anyar, Quercus leucotrichophora, Q.  
 

       semecarpifolia,  Aesculus indica  
 

       Cedrus deodara, Myrica esculenta,  
 

  
30 Thatyur Forest 67.2 - Rhododendron arboreum, Quercus  

 

 

Dehradun leucotrichophora, Q. floribunda, Q.  
 

       
 

       semecarpifolia  
 

  31 Maanthaat Forest 15 - Cedrus deodara  
 

  32 Danda Ka Deorana  20 - Cedrus deodara  
 

       Pinus roxburghii, Quercus leucotrichophora, 
 

  
33 Kamleshwar 

Forest 10 sq. km - Q. floribunda, Cedrus deodara, Pinus  
 

 

Uttarkashi Mahadev excelsa, Rhododendron arboreum, Myrica   

      
 

       esculenta, Celtis australis  
 

  34 Madhkeshwar Forest 15 sq. km - Cedrus deodara  
 

  35 Bhadrakali Forest 10 - Cedrus deodara  
 

 Tehri 
36 Sem Mukhim Naag Forest 60 - Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. floribunda, Q. 

 

 Garhwal semecarpifolia, Rhododendron arboreum  
 

       
 

  37 
Ulkhagarhi Forest 5 sq. km - Quercus leucotrichophora, Q. floribunda,  

 

   Rhododendron arboreum, Myrica esculenta  

 Pauri      
 

      

Cedrus deodara, Quercus leucotrichophora, 
 

 Garhwal      
 

 

38 Tarkeshwar Forest 5 sq. km 343 Q. floribunda, Q. semecarpifolia, Myrica  
 

   
 

       esculenta  
 

 
Rudraprayag 39 Hariyali Devi Forest 5 sq. kms  Quercus semecarpifolia, Q. leucotrichophora, 

 

 

- Aesculus indica, Myrica esculenta,  
 

       
  

Rhododendron arboreum, Celtis australis 
 
# Conservational value- principally in terms of biodiversity content; providing the only refuge for the wild faunal spp., or as the only source of water. 
*Diversity assessment has not been attempted. 
 
 

 
temporarily proscribed from the gathering and/or 
consumption of species. Anthropologists often refer to 
such taboos as specific food taboos (Rea, 1981). 
Segment taboos frequently pertain to pregnant women, 
children, menstruating females, and parents of newborns. 
Cultural perceptions, customs, and superstitious beliefs of 
human health risks are frequently related to such taboos 
(Osemeobo, 1994). Thus, segment taboos are often 
related to totemic beliefs, which reflect cognitive and 
linguistic categories, useful to the natives of these 
cultures (Posey, 1992). Additionally, few anthropologists 
have hypothesized that segment taboos may also serve 
as strategic responses to avoid game depletion (Ross, 
1978; Hames and Vickers, 1982).  
In the present case study, this taboo relates to the 
complete banning of the lower castes, the Harijans from 

 
 

 
not just the resource exploitation, but also from entering 
into the sacrosanct zones or the sacred natural sites that 
is, mostly the sacred forests, and the water bodies. This 
apart, the other most conspicuous extension of the taboo, 
and the most commonly ascribed, is the ban extended to 
the partruting and the menstruating females, who 
irrespective of the caste, are banned from entering into 
the restricted zones. The issue of menstrual blood in 
traditional beliefs has been treated extensively in 
anthropology as a source of potent force (Douglas, 1966). 
It may be conjectured that women, who were considered 
to be the most frequent users of water, were prohibited 
from entering the vicinity of rivers when they were 
menstruating to prevent degradation or defilement of the 
sacred water.  

In most communities rivers provided the main source of 

    Jagdish et al.     377 



378    Afr. J.  Envir. Econ. Manage. 

 

5% 6% 
 
 
 

44% 
 
 
 
 
 

45%  
 Groves 

 Forests 
 

 Alpine pastures  
 Water bodies 

 
Figure 1. The percentage distribution of the sacred natural sites (SNS, N= 168) across the State of 
Uttarakhand. 
 
 
 

N
u

m
b

e
r 

o
f 

th
e

 S
a

c
re

d
 N

a
tu

ra
l 
S

it
e

s
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

60    

Grove (44%)  

 

  

 

  

    

       
  

 50                  Forest (45%)  
 

                        
 

                   Alpine pastures (5%) 
 

(S
N

S
) 

40                  
Water bodies (6%)  

                  
 

30                        
 

                        
 

 20                        
 

 10                        
 

 0                        
 

 

Pithoragarh 

  
a  

t      
g  

li  n    
hi 

Garhwal 

 l 
 

               a 
 

  r 
pawa 

     a  o  

du 
    

w  

  o      y   m    s  
 

 

m     a      a   

Garh 
 

    r    a  a  rk    
 

 Al     p     h   

ehr tta     

   

Cha 
m   a     C  

D 
   

ri  

     dr         U  

Tehri 

  
 

    u             u  
 

      R       Districts covered Pa   
 

                   

 
Figure 2. The relative distribution of the sacred natural sites across the State of Uttarakhand. 

 
 

 
drinking water (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1995). The exclusion of 
women from certain religious festivals and ritualistic 
observances like their periodical segregation during their 
menstrual period appears to be due not to any assumed 
inferiority on their status but due to the tribals’ horror of 
menses, which is supposed to attract evil spirits. From 
conservation aspect, it seems appropriate that the 
womenfolk, representing the dominant workforce involved 
in the resource exploitation (including the banks of the 
rivulets and rivers, example ‘Latu ka gadera’, explained 
later under the sub-heading habitat taboos), throughout 
the hills, this ban extending for the duration of the 
menstrual cycle, significantly restricts the resource 
withdrawal; more so, when this taboo forms the  

 
 

 
predominant class of taboo, finding expression in nearly 
all the SNS, solely, as well as admixed with other taboos 
(Figure 3). 
 

 
Temporal taboos 

 
The temporal taboos apply when a cultural group bans 
access to resources during certain time periods, and are 
thus imposed sporadically, daily, or on a weekly to 
seasonal basis (Colding and Folke, 2001). Taboos 
imposed on a weekly to monthly basis are often referred 
to as a "closed season", which very often coincides with 



Jagdish et al.     379 
 
 
 
Table 2. Broad classification of taboos restricting the resource use in Uttarakhand (adapted from Colding and Folke 2001). 
 

S/no. Class of taboo Example  
A. Segment-  Segment of population observing the taboo 

 
1 Scheduled castes 

 
Pregnant and menstruating females, women 

2 
after child birth  

3 Pubescent girls  

 

4 Particular caste  

 
A common feature throughout the state of Uttarakhand, where lower 
castes are debarred to enter the sacred forests. Very often, this often 
leads to the phenomenon where the debarred caste create their own 
sacred groves, viz., Ratashila sacred grove in district Pithoragarh 
 
The most common sited reason debarring the womenfolk’s’ entry into 
the sacred natural sites  
As above 
 
Though rare, but at times even a class of upper castes too are tabooed to 
enter into sacred forests, viz., Aswals, a higher caste Rajputs are 
debarred from entering into the Tarkeshwar sacred forest in District Pauri 
Garhwal 

 
B. Temporal taboo restricting the resource use (principally from the sacred forests) 

 
1 Exploitation of resource on a seasonal basis  

 

 

2 Exploitation of resource on an annual basis  

 

3 Complete ban on the resource harvesting  

 
The most commonly observed resource exploitation pattern; very often 
the case were the sacred forest do not usually constitute the watershed 
 
The sacred forests of Chopakya, Jagatnath, and Jujarimal; as well as the 
sacred meadows of Bhadelguar, Hya Roshe, Kee Pang (all within Askote 
Conservation Landscape).  
The sacred forests of Manthaat, Hariyali, Madhkeshwar, 
Tarkeshwar, Thamri kund and Hokra Devi, among others. 

 
C. Method taboos primarily restricting the resource use, as well as providing protection 

 
1 
 
2 
 
3 
 
 
4 
 
 
5 
 
 
 
 
6 

 
All leather goods, especially the shoes 
 
7 days prohibitory period 
 
3 months prohibitory period 
 
 
Regulatory means to make use of 
the sacred water 

 
Hunting of wild animals on Tuesday, 
Friday and Saturdays 
 
 
 
Annual harvesting of fishes 

 
Examples include the famous Nanda Raj Jaat, and the Chipla Kedar Jaat 
 
Examples include the sacred forests of Thamri kund, Kotgyari 
Devi, Dhoulinag, and Chamunda Devi.  
Examples include the sacred forests of Kotgyari Devi, and 
Jyastha Masaani Devi. 
 
Defilement of the sacred water is protected by means of certain 
provisions, where the locals are forbidden to procure water directly 
from the water body. The best examples are the Thamri kund, Muldi 
Bai, Syangchu kund (kund syn. Pond). 
 
Hunting, a strict taboo on the prescribed days, viz., in case of the sacred 
forests of Kalsin, Tiundhar, and Devidhar. 
 
During the annual Maun festival in Jaunsar valley in Dehradun district, 
the locals collectively engage themselves in a large-scale communal 
hunt of fish, where powder of Timru (Zanthoxylum armatum) is poured 
into the river in sackfuls. Poisonous affects of the powder makes the fish 
an easy catch. The whole exercise might be effective towards adjusting 
the resource harvest practices to sustain yields and thus conserve 
biodiversity (Gadgil et al. 1993). 

 
D. Life history- Regulates withdrawal of vulnerable life history stages of species 

Exploitation of immature Brahmkamal 
1 

(Saussurea obvallata) 
 
2 Hunting of pregnant does 

 
Nanda Astami festival in Martoli village in Johaar valley. This aspect 
is rather commonly observed throughout the landscape.  
Institution of Mrigoli as practiced in Hariyali Devi Sacred forest forbids 
hunting of pregnant does 

 
E. Species-specific- taboo banning the exploitation of the individual species 

Fiya or Himalayan marmot (Marmot bobak) is a totem; Serow (Cervus 
1 Hunting of wild species 

unicolor) within the sacred forest surrounding the Thamri Kund  



380     Afr. J.  Envir. Econ. Manage. 
 
 
 

Table 2. Contd. 
 

Kharik (Celtis australis), Malu (Bauhinia vahlii), Paiyan (Prunus ceresoides), 
2 Exploitation of sacred species Deodar (Cedrus deodara), Shiling (Osmanthus fragrans) are some of the  

most commonly religiously protected species in the State of Uttarakhand. 
 

F. Habitat taboos-  Restricts access and use of resources in time and space 
 
1 
 
2 
 
3 

 
Sacred forests and groves 
 
Sacred water bodies 
 
Stretch of land adjoining the river 
or even the agricultural field 

 
The sacred forests of Maanthaat, Hokra Devi, Danda Ka Deorana, 
Tarkeshwar, Bhujani, Bombasing and Hariyali Devi offer the best example. 
Thamri Kund near the township of Munsiari; Kedar Kund within Askote 
Conservation landscape  
Latu ka gadera and the small patch of land located in the village Pujeli, 
Uttarkashi 

 
 

 
spawning or mating seasons of species. In Uttarakhand, 
as in rest of the country, many castes abstain totally from 
consumption of fish, poultry, and meat, and suspend all 
hunting as well, during the Hindu month of ‘Sravana’ 
(roughly August). And thus, temporal taboos function to 
reduce harvesting pressure on particular subsistence 
resources (Ntiamoa-Baidu, 1991). In the present case, 
temporal taboo extends to periodicity and regulative 
nature of resource exploitation, primarily from the sacred 
forests that primarily concerns with the collection of the 
litter mass (for biocompost purpose), as well as coppicing 
of the fodder species, which remains the predominant 
use of the sacred forests by the stakeholders, in the 
region.  

However, temporal taboo is less marked overall, except 
in case of the sacred forests (Figure 3), since no exploita-
tion of resources takes place from the sacred groves, 
borne out of their restricted size and resource availability, 
thereby rendering them non-economical, both in terms of 
time and space. In case of the sacred forests, the 
resource exploitation is primarily on a seasonal basis; in 
35 out of the 75 sacred forests covered, followed by com-
plete ban on resource exploitation (in 22 sites, Figure 4). 
Sites, where complete ban on resource exploitation is in 
practice, are the sacred forests, which remain the only 
watershed and thus the source of water for the resident 
population, example, the sacred forest of Maanthaat. 
Additionally, the harvesting is carried out on an annual 
basis in few of the sacred forests, which remain the only 
patch of green and thus the source of fodder for the 
villagers inhabiting below, example, the sacred forests of 
Chopakya, Jagatnath, and Jujarimal (Table 1 and Figure 
4).  

In addition, exploitation of high altitude medicinal and 
aromatic plants (MAPs) from the sacred alpine meadows, 
takes place only once in a year. However, this later tem-
poral taboo could be debated as the MAPs exploitation 
are more economical, if the same is carried out at a late 
stage, when nearly all the MAPs have attained maturity, 
example, sacred meadows of Bhadelguar, Hya Roshe, 
Kee Pang (all within Askote Conservation Landscape, 
District Pithoragarh). 

 
 

 
Method taboos 
 
The method taboo applies when a cultural group bans the 
use of certain methods and techniques for the withdrawal 
or exploitation of the species (Colding and Folke, 2001). 
Invariably in all the cases of sacred forests, this relates to 
the precise regulation of coppicing of the major fodder 
species, that is, Banj (Quercus leucotrichophora), and the 
collection of the litter mass from the forests. In case of the 
alpine habitats, principally in case of the sacredbugyals 
(alpine meadows), this relates to the methodology applied 
towards managing the grazing pressure, viz., allowing 
only the Yaks and their hybrids (Jhuppu and Jomos) in 
case of Hya Roshe, and only the milching livestocks to 
graze, in case of the Putuk-Tu, both within Askote 
Conservation Landscape. Additionally, the Van 
Panchayat (village Forest Council) regularly monitors the 
grazing pressure and the state of the pasture to make 
decisions about rotating or relocating herds or even 
downsizing the size of the grazing herd. Yet, other very 
effective means of lessening the intensity of resource use 
from the SNS are strict adherence to certain norms, viz., 
partaking measures not to eat meat, drink liquor, even 
certain completely prohibited eatables, such as onion, 
garlic (the two most commonly referred abhorred items), 
for a minimum of one week, before one makes a 
pilgrimage to SNS; the three months prohibitory period 
extended to each of clan members, when a death occurs 
in a family; and lastly the phenomenon of restricted days 
of hunting (Table 2).  

Additionally, the method taboo could be extended to the 
strict norm of walking bare feet, promulgated during the 
annual Jaats (pilgrimage) traversing through the sensitive 
alpine meadows, viz., during the Nanda Astamifestival, 
when sacred Brahmkamal (Saussurea obvallata) 
collection is carried out; during Chipla Kedar Jaat or 
during the more famous Nanda Devi Raj Jaat, the 
devotes traverse the difficult high altitude landscape bare 
feet. Wearing shoes is a taboo. Obvious connotation to 
the significance of the practice towards conservation of 
the flora could be made, since bare feet are less 
damaging than the shoes! 



Jagdish et al.     381
 
 

 

N
u

m
b

e
r 

o
f 

S
a
c

re
d

 N
a

tu
ra

l 
S

it
e

s
 

 
 
 
 
 

120        
 

100 
98       

 

       
 

80        
 

60        
 

40        
 

   21     
 

20 12 13      
 

8  

4 
   

 

   

3 
   

 1 2 1 1 2 
 

0        
  

Class of Taboo system1 in practice 
 

 
  

Only segment 
 

Only temporal  

   
 

    

  
Only species specific 

 
Segment + Temporal  

   
 

    

  
Segment + Temporal + Method 

 
Temporal + Method  

   
 

    

  
Segment + Method 

 
Method + Species specific  

   
 

    

  
Segment + Temporal + Method + Species specific 

 
Temporal + Species specific  

   
 

    

  
Temporal + Method + Species specific 

 
Segment + Species specific  

   
 

 
Figure 3. The preponderance of different classes of taboo system surrounding the Sacred Natural 
Sites. 
 

 

fo
re

s
ts

 

40 35   
 

    
 

o
f 

S
a
c

re
d

 

30   
22  

   
 

20 
 18  

 

   
 

10 
   

 

N
u

m
b

e
r    

 

0    
 

 Periodic or seasonal Once in a year Complete ban 
 

      
Exploitation pattern 

 
Figure 4. Temporal taboo as regards the exploitation of the resource from the sacred forests (N=75) 
across the State of Uttarakhand. 

 

 
Life history taboos 
 
The following category of taboos applies when a cultural 
group bans the use of certain vulnerable stages of a 
species' life history based on its age, size, sex or 
reproductive status (Colding and Folke, 2001). Example 
offered from the landscape, includes the institution of 
Mrigoli (Table 1), wherein the hunters do not hunt the 
pregnant doe, or when they are in a flock. This is more so 
when one of the deer has a white mark on its forehead 
(which is more often the case), and the same is treated 

 

 
as reincarnated departed soul, in all probability, of one of 
the village elders! Infact, the hunting is restricted to male 
and older animals. In this way the communities are able 
to ensure continued population growth of their wildlife 
resources. 
 
 
Specific-species taboos 
 
The following category of taboos applies when a cultural 
group totally bans the killing and detrimental use of 



 
 
 

 
specific species in both time and space (Colding and 
Folke, 2001). Anthropologists often refer to such taboos 
as general or permanent food taboos, because they apply 
to all members in a community and often concern foods 
(Rea, 1981). Example offered from the landscape 
includes the complete ban on killing of Fiya (Himalayan 
marmot, Marmot bobak) in Vyas valley. Reasons 
specified for the behaviour in literature, range from 
species serving as religious symbols (Fargey, 1992), or 
representing reincarnated humans (Osemeobo, 1994). 
Such reasons constitute strong sentiments behind self-
enforcement of the taboos. However, in the present case, 
the taboo is enforced out of the fear that ‘the spirits will 
sanction violators by invoking illness upon people, or will 
cause the crop failure’.  

Of particular interest are the taboos imposed on some 
keystone related plant species, such as Deodar (Cedrus 
deodara), Paiyan (Prunus ceresoides), Shiling 
(Osmanthus fragrans), Ratpa (Rhododendron 
campanulatum), Bil (Juniperus communis) and Raga 
(Cupressus torulosa), along with the most commonly 
noted species Peepal (Ficus religiosa) and Bargad (F. 
benghalensis). It is important to take note of the fact that 
in invariably all the cases, these species play pivotal role 
in the conservation or sustenance of the ecosystem, at 
large. For example, Ratpa (Rhododendron 
campanulatum) as well as Bil (Juniperus communis) 
provide refuge as well as breeding space for two of the 
most endangered species, Musk deer (Moschus 
chrysogaster chrysogaster) and the Monal pheasant 
(Lophophorus impejanus). 
 
 
Habitat taboos 
 
The following category of taboos applies, when a cultural 
group regulates both access to and use of resources from 
particular habitats in space and time (Colding and Folke, 
2001). This taboo, in the present case, obviously extends 
to each of the SNS covered. A forest, part of a forest, a 
rivulet, or pond may never be subjugated to harvesting, 
hunting, fishing or any other kind of resource use, often 
being protected by religious taboos and considered 
sacred to community members. Example from the 
landscape includes the stretch of land on both the banks 
of the Latu ka gadera, the small rivulet which runs along 
the sacred grove of Latu, near Van village, remains a 
taboo, and hence no agriculture is practiced within the 
zone. Similarly, a small patch of land measuring around 
50 by 5 m located within the prime agricultural field in the 
village Pujeli, Uttarkashi is not cultivated. These smaller 
or larger sacred areas, inclusive of all the SNS, 
encompass a number of ecological services, including the 
maintenance of biological diversity (Table 2), provision of 
habitat for threatened species, regulation of local 
hydrological cycles, prevention of soil erosion, pollination 
of crops, 

382     Afr. J.  Envir. Econ. Manage. 
 
 

 
and preservation of locally adapted crop varieties, and 
serving as wind and fire brakes (Gadgil, 1987). One of 
the prime examples is offered by the sacred forest site, 
the Thamri kund, where one can easily sight the herd of 
serow (Cervus unicolor), as well as other wild animals, 
who come to drink the water at the site. This little lake 
located at a height of around 3000 m amsl, is held very 
sacred, not just by the locals of the surrounding villages, 
but by the populace of the adjoining township of Munsiari. 
As per one locals, ‘No one is allowed to defile the waters, 
not even drink directly from it!’  

In summary, as and when the above-mentioned class 
of taboos is transgressed, an expiation ceremony has got 
to be undergone. A breach of the law would bring on the 
entire society divine wrath. Invariably, however, the social 
taboos need enforcement mechanisms to be effective 
(North, 1990). The informal institutions like social taboos 
are self-enforced by the community (North, 1990; Posner 
and Rasmusen, 1999), the self-enforcement being 
principally borne out of the fear of religious sanctions and 
social conventions (Osemeobo, 1994). The precise moni-
toring of compliance of norms surrounding the resource 
use from the sacred natural sites, and else, is further-
more facilitated due to the closeness of family members 
and strong kinship ties (North, 1990). Furthermore, 
sanctions against violations of taboos may be determined 
and meted out by chiefs and leaders. Such sanctions 
include monetary fines, payment in cattle (Ntiamoa-
Baidu, 1991), or even ‘sacrificing a goat or a sheep’, as is 
the usual case in most of the sacred sites encountered. 
This charge is sufficiently deterrent to scare people from 
infringing or breaking the taboos. 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
The institution of sacred natural sites, along with the strict 
norms and taboos that relates to resource utilization, 
invariably relates to the sustainable resource 
management practices (Dorm et al., 1991; Hagan, 1998). 
Temporal taboos, and perhaps segment taboos, may 
promote local conservation of subsistence resources. In 
summary, taboos contribute to the conservation of 
habitats, and of biodiversity, both temporally and 
spatially, as is explicit from Tables 1 and 2. However, a 
much clearer under-standing of spiritual and mystical 
beliefs, and the related local institutions associated with 
traditional natural resources management, is needed. 
Such an assessment would provide valuable insights into 
the changing values of local people in relation to the 
protection of forests and other natural resources.  

Collaborative research involving anthropologists and 
natural scientists may help explain the scientific and 
social value of beliefs related to traditional natural 
resources management in the study area. This may 
enhance the acceptability of these traditions, many of 
which have conservation potential. Needless to 



Jagdish et al.     383 
 
 

 
emphasize, there is an urgent need to set forth specific 
guidelines to safeguard the sacred areas and promote 
the traditional knowledge of conservation, namely: The 
revitalization and enforcement of traditional education; 
The delineation of boundaries; The improvement of 
relevant knowledge and their official recognition through a 
legal status (Dorm-Adzobu and Ampadu-Agyei, 1995; 
McWilliam, 2001). It is urgently felt that traditional 
knowledge-based systems that is, the local belief 
systems should be made inclusive part of developmental 
programmes, for the simple reason that the local 
populace could relate themselves to the same. 
 
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
The author gratefully acknowledges the financial help 
received from the Director, Uttarakhand State Council for 
Science and Technology, Government of Uttarakhand, 
Dehradun, and the Director, G. B. Pant Institute of 
Himalayan Environment and Development, Kosi-
Katarmal, Almora. The study however, would not have 
been possible without the help of the village residents-the 
ultimate custodians of the biodiversity. 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Abayie BA (1998). Traditional conservation practices: Ghana's example. 

Inst. Afr. Stud. Res. Rev., 14(1): 42-51.  
Colding J, Folke C (2001). Social taboos: ‘Invisible’ systems of local 

resource management and biological conservation. Ecol. Appl., 11(2): 
584-600.  

Dorm AC, Ampadu-Agyei O, Veit PG (1991). Religious Beliefs and 
Environmental Protection: The Malshegu sacred grove in Northern 
Ghana, WRI Washington, DC, USA and Acts Press, Africa Centre for 
Technology Studies, Kenya.  

Dorm-Adzorbu C, Ampadu-Agyei O (1995). The Malshegu sacred 
grove, Ghana. In Sigot A, Thrupp LA, Green J (eds) Towards 
Common Ground: Gender and Natural Resource Management in 
Africa, ACTS Press, Nairobi, pp. 49-64.  

Douglas M (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concept of 
Pollution and Taboo, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.  

Durkheim E (1915). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, Allen 
and Unwin, London, UK.  

Fargey PJ (1992). Monkeys and traditional conservation in Ghana. Oryx 
26: 151-156.  

Frazer JG (1922). The Golden Bough, Chaucer Press, Bungay.  
Gadgil M (1987). Diversity: cultural and biological. Trends Ecol. Evol. 

12: 369-373.  
Gadgil M, Berkes F, Folke C (1993). Indigenous knowledge for 

biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151-156.  
Hagan GP (1998). Traditional laws and methods of conservation and 

sustainable use of biodiversity. In Amlalo DS, Atsiatorme LD, Fiati C 
(eds) Proceedings of the Third UNESCO MAB Regional Seminar on 
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in 
Anglophone Africa (BRAAF), Cape Coast, 9-12th March 1997. Accra, 
Egypt. 

 
 
 

 
Hames R, Vickers W (1982). Optimal diet breadth theory as a model to 

explain variability in Amazonian hunting. Amer. Ethnol. 9(2): 358-378.  
Kamga-Kamdem ISL (2008). Ancestral Beliefs and Conservation: The 

case of sacred areas in Bandjoun, West Cameroon, African Centre of 
Applied Forestry Research and Development (CARFAD), West 
Cameroon, p. 23.  

Knight J (1992). Institutions and Social Conflict, Cambridge University 
Press, New York, USA.  

Malinowski B (1922). Agronauts of the Western Pacific: an account of 
native enterprise and adventure in the archipelagoes of Melanesian 
New Guinea, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, U.K.  

McNeely JA (2003). Biological and cultural diversity: The double helix of 
sustainable development. In: Biodiversity and Health: Focusing 
Research to Policy: Proceedings of the International Symposium, 
Ottawa, Canada, pp. 3–9.  

McWilliam A (2001). Prospects for the sacred grove: Valuing lulic 
forests on Timor. Asia Pacific Jr. Anthro. 2: 89-113.  

Murphree MW (1994). The role of institutions in community-based 
conservation. In Western D, Wright RM, Strum SC (eds) Natural 
Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation, Island 
Press, Washington D.C. and Covelo, California, pp. 403-427.  

Negi CS (2010). Askote Conservation Landscape-Culture, Biodiversity, 
Economy, Bishen Singh Mahendra Pal Singh Publishers and 
Distributors, Dehradun, India.  

North DC (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic 
Performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.  

Ntiamoa-Baidu Y (1991). Conservation of coastal lagoons in Ghana: 
The traditional approach. Lands. Urban Plann. 20: 41-46.  

Ntiamoa-Baidu Y (1995). Indigenous vs. Introduced Biodiversity 
Conservation Strategies: The Case of Protected Area Systems in 
Ghana, African Biodiversity Series Number 1, May 1995, Biodiversity 
Support Program, Washington, DC.  

Osemeobo GJ (1994). The role of folklore in environmental 
conservation: Evidence from Edo State, Nigeria. Inter. Jr. Sust. Dev. 
World Ecol., 1: 48-55.  

Posey DA (1992). Interpreting and applying the "reality" of indigenous 
concepts: What is necessary to learn from the natives? In Redford 
KH, Padoch C (eds) Conservation in Neotropical Forests: Working 
from Traditional Resource Use, Columbia University Press, Irvington, 
New York, pp. 21-34.  

Posner RA, Rasmusen EB (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with 
special reference to sanctions. Inter. Rev. Law Econ., 19:369-382.  

Rappaport RA (1968). Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a 
New Guinea People, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut, 
USA.  

Rea AM (1981). Resource utilization and food taboos of Sonoran desert 
peoples. Jr. Ethnobiol., 1: 69-83.  

Ross EB (1978). Food taboos, diet, and hunting strategy: The 
adaptation to animals in Amazon cultural ecology. Curr. Anthro., 19:1-
36.  

Sinclair FL, Walker DH (1999). A utilitarian approach to the 
incorporation of local knowledge in agroforestry research and 
extension. In Buck LE, Lassoie JP, Fernandes ECM (eds) 
Agroforestry in Sustainable Agricultural Systems, CRC Press LLC, 
Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 245-275. 
 


