International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem

Services & Management

ISSN: 2151-3732 (Print) 2151-3740 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21

Local people's perceptions of forest biodiversity in

the walnut fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan

Gulnaz Jalilova & Harald Vacik

To cite this article: Gulnaz Jalilova & Harald Vacik (2012) Local people's perceptions of forest
biodiversity in the walnut fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan, International Journal of Biodiversity Science,
Ecosystem Services & Management, 8:3, 204-216, DOI: 10.1080/21513732.2012.696557

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.696557

Published online: 19 Jun 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 658

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tbsm21
International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Vol. 8, No. 3, September 2012, 204–216

Local people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity in the walnut fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan
Gulnaz Jalilova* and Harald Vacik
Department of Forest and Soil Sciences, Institute of Silviculture, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU),
Vienna, Austria

The biodiversity of the walnut fruit forests in Kyrgyzstan is under huge pressure due to various socio-economic challenges
and anthropogenic factors. In this context, the participation of local people plays a significant role in the conservation
of biodiversity. This study assessed local people’s understanding of forest biodiversity and evaluated their knowledge of
the wildlife at three different locations. The research was conducted between May and September in 2008 with randomly
selected households (n = 142). The results indicated that the local people were aware of the concept of forest biodiversity.
This concept is perceived in different ways depending on the benefits gained from the forest and due to a bias which is
strongly related to profession. Regarding the current conditions of biodiversity in general, people have clear and positive
intentions for conservation. However, it seems that people will be unable to reduce their impact on forest resources in the
future due to the current socio-economic challenges. Further, people’s expectations for the future of forest biodiversity
varied significantly (6–52%) between the sites due to the differences in the pressure exerted by humans on the forests and
the availability of forest resources. Concerning the people’s knowledge of wildlife this was limited to few species (28–35%
of the species occurring in this area). This study highlights the fact that increasing awareness of wildlife is essential for the
maintenance of biodiversity. Local people and the forestry sector need to stress the importance of biodiversity in establishing
a sound conservation strategy, as well as income-generating activities.
Keywords: walnut fruit forests; biodiversity conservation; perception; sustainable forest management; Central Asia

Introduction conservation strategies and measures against degradation.

The conservation of biodiversity is one of the guid-
ing principles for sustainable forest management (SFM)
(Lindenmayer and Franklin 2002). The concept of
biodiversity has been defined in many ways (Acharya
et al. 2004; Charnley et al. 2007). The Rio Convention of
1992 defined biodiversity as the variety of living organisms
at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels and the ecolog-
ical complexes of which they form a part. Biodiversity is
being lost on a local scale due to various human activities
such as the destruction of habitats, deforestation and the
overexploitation of forest resources during recent decades
(Trombulak et al. 2004; Hooper et al. 2005; Fisher and
Lindenmayer 2007; Rahman et al. 2009). The conservation
of biodiversity can be achieved through active participation
of local people, which would allow the gaps between policy
and its implementation to be overcome.
Forest biodiversity conservation has come to be seen
as more complex as conservationists have attempted to
understand and accommodate the needs and rights of peo-
ple who live around the forest (Food and Agriculture
Organization 2009). This process requires the integration
of local people’s experiences and existing local knowl-
edge about the social and economic constraints of potential
management practices. For example, for forest-dependent
communities, the experiences of the local people and
their perceptions and responses towards their surround-
ing environment are critical in designing meaningful
Local knowledge regarding biodiversity is also vital and
should be considered as an integral part of SFM strategies
(Fiallo and Jacobson 1995; Bizerril 2004; Mukherjee and
Borad 2004; Boissiere et al. 2009; Chang 2009).
Walnut fruit forests
The walnut fruit forests in Kyrgyzstan are found at
1000–2200 m above sea level on the western slopes of
the Fergana and Chatkal ranges of the western Tien-Shan
mountains and are considered to be the last remaining areas
of this particular type of forest in the region. These forests
are said to be significant with regard to biodiversity con-
servation not only at the regional level, but also at the
global level (Ashimov 1998; Venglovsky 1998; Fisher et al.
2004). The walnut fruit forests are characterized by the
natural forest stands of Juglans regia L. and fruit-bearing
tree and shrub species such as Malus spp., Pyrus spp.,
Crataegus spp. and Prunus sogdiana, including around
183 various woody species, 34 of which are endemic
to Central Asia and 16 of which are endemic to south-
ern Kyrgyzstan (Ashimov 1998). More than 5000 plant
species, 150 species of birds, 40 species of mammals and
185 reptiles have been reported (Goslesagenstvo 1996;
Kolov 1998). The territory of these forests covers approx-
imately 632,500 ha, whereas the actual area covered by
walnut fruit forests is now estimated at no more than

*Corresponding author. Email: gulnaz.jalilova@boku.ac.at

ISSN 2151-3732 print/ISSN 2151-3740 online

© 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.696557
http://www.tandfonline.com
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
34,000 ha (Goslesagenstvo 1996). Due to the influence
of the northern Chatkal and northern Fergana mountain
ranges, the forests are well protected from the severe cold
winter and hot summer temperatures. The climate is con-
tinental and the average annual precipitation is 1000 mm.
Precipitation occurs mainly in the spring (Central Forest
Inventory 1990–1991). The walnut fruit forests serve as
a regulator of the water supply to the Fergana Valley, the
main agricultural area of Central Asia, and ultimately to
the Aral Sea. Three soil types are of interest in these
forests: grey cinnamon, cinnamon and dark cinnamon soil
(Samusenko 1992).
The forests play an important role in the livelihoods
of about 100,000 people as their main source of income
(Goslesagenstvo 1996; Blaser et al. 1998). According to
the Poverty Index of Kyrgyzstan, 55.9% of people are iden-
tified as being poor in this region (International Monetary
Fund 2007). In particular, the economic recession of
1991 increased the enormous pressure on forest resources
(Kouplevatskaya 2006), as limited alternative sources of
income exist. Collecting firewood, grazing and collecting
walnuts all pose a significant threat to biodiversity conser-
vation (Ministry of Environmental Protection 1998; Sorg
and Venglovsky 2001).
Forest and conservation management
In order to address these pressing issues concerning
biodiversity conservation in Kyrgyzstan, the government
launched several policy objectives and action plans,
including the ‘Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of
Kyrgyzstan’ under the Biological Diversity Convention
(Ministry of Environmental Protection 1998), the Forestry
Development Plan (State Forest Service 2004b) and the
National Forest Programme (State Forestry Service 2004a),
in which biodiversity conservation was listed as one of
the most important criteria to concentrate on. In 1995, a
collaborative approach to forest management (CFM) was
introduced fostering partnerships with local people in the
management of the forests (Carter et al. 2003). Moreover,
biodiversity conservation came to be seen as one of the
main activities in the promotion of SFM. This is based on
the widely accepted premise that the long-term survival of
the forests can be best ensured by encouraging local people
to take greater responsibility for forest management and
increasing the direct value of the forests to them (Khadka
and Vacik 2006). The CFM approach recognized the active
participation of local people in forest management, deci-
sion making and poverty reduction through improving the
social conditions of forest users as its main principle.
However, the participation of local people in
biodiversity conservation and their perceptions of the
biodiversity of these forests are not well documented.
Several studies have been conducted (Kashkarov 1926;
Vorobiev and Chichikin 1966; Beishebaev 1970; de Groot
and Jalilova 2004; Herold 2005; Jalilova 2007), but the
entire area of these forests has never been investigated,
especially with regard to the populations of mammals and
205
birds. Knowledge about the interactions between humans
and wildlife is entirely missing. As game animals are
not easily found in these forest ecosystems, recreational
activities such as hunting are very limited or do not exist.
In addition, the local people were not always consid-
ered to be an important part of SFM due to the former
Soviet forest policy, which was very technically oriented.
Although there has been a recent advancement in policy
regarding the role of local people’s participation in various
cycles of biodiversity planning, thus far no research has
been conducted in order to investigate the local communi-
ties’ viewpoints on biodiversity conservation. Moreover,
social research has not addressed the requirements of
biodiversity management in these forests. There is a need
to adopt a holistic approach in order to reduce the ongoing
biodiversity loss and to take appropriate action, taking into
account the needs of the local people. Therefore, the main
objectives of this study are to evaluate the perceptions of
local people with regard to forest biodiversity in selected
sites in the walnut fruit forests and to assess the knowledge
on mammals and birds in the forests and to identify their
views about the state of the forest biodiversity in the
future.
Method
Study area
The research was conducted from May to September in
2008 in three leshozes (forest enterprises): Arstanbap,
Karalma and Ortok (Figure 1). The research sites were cho-
sen according to the different levels of human population,
ethnic composition and the availability of forest resources
per resident (Table 1).
The population of the Karalma leshoz was about
2205 inhabitants at the time of this study, almost all of
whom were Kyrgyz. The landscape consists of mountains
with forests and arable land. This leshoz is regarded as
one of the biggest leshozes in the walnut fruit forests, with
a total area of 31,003 ha of which 13,324 ha is covered
with forests. Humans have had a fairly moderate impact on
these forests compared with other sites. The Ortok leshoz
is dominated mainly by natural forests and partly by planta-
tions. This site is hardly accessible by road. Approximately
1500 Kyrgyz people live in this leshoz, alongside the road
and in patches of forest and open areas. The leshoz com-
prises 10,282 ha of forest and it is regarded as one of the
richest leshozes in terms of the amount of forest per local
resident (7 ha per person in 2003). This site is consid-
ered to be one of those which has been affected least by
humans. The Arstanbap leshoz is located in the Bazar–
Korgon region with about 16,605 inhabitants with a very
diverse ethnic composition; the majority of residents are
from the Uzbek ethnic group. The area covered by for-
est is about 7801 ha (0.7 ha per person). The location
is easily accessible by road and is one of the areas in
the region which has been affected by tourism. The pres-
sure exerted by humans is high due to overgrazing and
firewood collection which results in a lack of shrub species.
206 G. Jalilova and H. Vacik

Figure 1. Map of Kyrgyzstan. The study area is marked with a rectangle.

Source: GIS-Service Ltd., Bishkek.

Table 1. Key characteristics of population and forest resources of Karalma, Ortok and Arstanbap study sites (based on Abdymomunov
2001; Forest Inventory 2003).

Indicator Karalma village Ortok Arstanbap

Population of the villages (n) 2205 1500 16,605

Ethnic composition of the population (%) Kyrgyz: 99, Other: 1 Kyrgyz: 99, Other: 1 Uzbek: 79, Kyrgyz: 20, Other: 1
Distance to centre (km) 55 50 60
Total leshoz area (ha) 31,003 17,598 16,267
Area covered by forests (ha) 13,324 10,282 7801
Forested area (ha) per person 4.9 7.0 0.45
Classification of human pressure on forest resources Middle Low High

In addition, at all three sites, walnuts and other fruits are
widely used as non-timber forest products. The main crops
are potatoes and maize. Livestock is also one of the main
sources of income for the local people.
Methods and data analysis
In total, 142 formal interviews were conducted with ran-
domly selected households (n = 142) which were drawn
from the village register according to the ethnicity, age,
education and professional background of the respondent.
The interviews were carried out in Karalma (n = 50),
Ortok (n = 46) and Arstanbap (n = 46), with open-ended
and closed-ended questions (qualitative and quantitative) in
accordance with general guidelines (Harada 2003; Xu et al.
2006). In order to maintain a gender balance, the heads
of the households were not targeted. Moreover, only one
respondent (>18 years of age) from each household was
interviewed. The questionnaire was prepared in English
and translated into the Kyrgyz language, as most of the
respondents were Kyrgyz. In addition, the Uzbek and
Russian languages were also used whenever there was a
need to clarify the questions and terms. All of the inter-
views were conducted by the first author, who is a native
Kyrgyz speaker and has been working in these forests
for over 10 years. At the start of each interview, the
respondent was informed that his or her participation was
completely voluntary. Most of the interviews were con-
ducted in the late morning or in the evening when the
people had returned from doing their daily chores.
The responses of the respondents were content anal-
ysed and classified into categories according to the type of
the response, following a procedure mentioned by Hyseni
(2008). The independent variables, including age, gender,
ethnicity, education and profession, were classified into
several categories in order to test them using the dependent
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 207

Table 2. Demographic factors in Karalma, Ortok and Arstanbap study sites.

Factor Classification Karalma (n = 50) Ortok (n = 46) Arstanbap (n = 46) Distribution (%)

Age 20–25 10 9 8 27 (19)

25–35 10 8 10 28 (20)
35–45 11 9 7 27 (19)
45–60 11 10 10 31 (22)
>60 8 10 11 29 (20)
Gender Male 25 21 23 69 (49)
Female 25 25 23 73 (51)
Education University degree 12 7 7 26 (19)
Special education/college 13 15 18 46 (32)
Secondary school 25 24 21 70 (49)
Ethnicity Kyrgyz 50 46 23 119 (84)
Uzbek 0 0 23 23 (16)
Profession Forestry sector 9 9 3 21 (15)
Social worker 6 4 4 14 (10)
Other job 9 8 12 29 (20)
Unemployed 20 16 19 55 (38)
Pensioner (retired) 6 9 8 23 (17)

variables (Table 2). The data were analysed using SPSS
version 15.
Descriptive statistics were derived in order to sum-
marize the properties of the data set, while analytical
methods such as crosstab χ 2 tests (significance level of
p < 0.05) were used to compare the results of the different
entities.
Results
The term ‘forest biodiversity’
The respondents’ understanding of the concept of
biodiversity varied and they provided a wide range of def-
initions in response to the open-ended questions. Further,
the given descriptions have been classified accordingly into
three categories: out of a total of 142 respondents, 40%
understood biodiversity as the diversity of living organ-
isms and their interactions with each other; 24% stated
that biodiversity was a natural wealth providing every-
thing necessary for people’s lives; 19% of them claimed
that they understood biodiversity as being the surround-
ing nature and its variety; and the rest did not respond.
The respondents involved in the forestry sector gave
more precise definitions, which were related to the Rio
Conference concept (1992) of biodiversity. Furthermore,
more highly educated people were found to be more knowl-
edgeable with regard to the Western concept of biodiversity
(χ 2 = 16.91, p = 0.01).
Current condition of forest biodiversity
In general, almost 95% (132 out of 142) of the respon-
dents for the closed-ended questions on the forest depen-
dence stated that forest resources are important for their
livelihood, regardless of the accessibility of resources
and the ongoing activities in the forests. With regard to
the closed-ended question about the current state of the
forests, the most frequent answer was that the forests’
biodiversity condition is not satisfactory. When we look
at the sites more closely, it becomes apparent that opin-
ions differ. More respondents in Karalma and Ortok (28%
and 26%, respectively) classified the current condition
of forest biodiversity as good, compared to Arstanbap
where only a few people (7%) agreed with this statement
(Figure 2). A large proportion of the respondents from all
of the sites (37–42%) pointed out that the current con-
ditions are not satisfactory. Many respondents (37%) in
Arstanbap described the resources as threatened where the
forest resources have been heavily degraded during recent
decades.
Factors leading to biodiversity loss
The main answers selected by respondents in response to
the closed-ended questions about causes of biodiversity
loss were firewood collection (31%), poverty (14%) and
the lack of governmental management (20%). Only 2% of
the respondents cited uncontrolled grazing as a cause of
biodiversity loss. Other additional factors were listed by a
minority of respondents, such as climate change or high
temperatures, but only the most important factors were
selected for further discussion (Figure 3).
If we look closely at each site, there are a few observ-
able differences between them (χ 2 = 49.83, p < 0.001).
The answer given most frequently (42%) in Arstanbap
pointed out that poverty and a lack of alternative livelihood
resources are the main factors contributing to biodiversity
loss and 20–40% of respondents noted the extensive use of
firewood. A high percentage of respondents in Ortok and
Karalma said I do not know when faced with this question,
or stated that they did not face difficulties regarding the
availability of forest resources – compared with the respon-
dents in Arstanbap. There was no significant correlation
with ethnicity, gender, education or profession.
208 G. Jalilova and H. Vacik

50
45
40
Karalma
35

Respondents (%)
Ortok
30
Arstanbap
25
General
20
15
10
5
0
Good Satisfactory Not satisfactory Threatened I do not know
Respondents opinion (n = 142)

Figure 2. Opinions of respondents on the current condition of forest biodiversity.

60
Karalma
50 Ortok
Arstanbap
Respondents (%)

40 General

30

20

10

0
Poverty Firewood Grazing Lack of I do not know
management
Respondents view (n = 142)

Figure 3. Views of respondents on the factors leading to the loss of biodiversity.

Local people’s knowledge of wildlife
Mammals
In total, 14 species (corresponding to 35% of the mam-
mals reported to be occurring in the walnut fruit forests)
were mentioned by the local people on the basis of an
open-ended question. The number of species mentioned
(Annex 1) did not differ between the different sites.
However, people were more knowledgeable about some
species that have a utilitarian value as well as species which
negatively affected their livelihood.
The most commonly noted species were rabbits (Lepus
tolai – 73%), wolves (Canis lupus – 59%), badgers (Meles
meles – 37%), foxes (Vulpes vulpes – 35%) and jackals
(Canis aureus – 33%). The least commonly noted species
were the brown bear (Ursus arctos – 15%) and the wild
boar (Sus scrofa – 7%). Small mammals such as the
weasel (Mustela nivalis – 2%) and the Turkestan rat (Rattus
turkestanicus – 0.7%) were rarely mentioned, which indi-
cated that people did not pay attention to smaller species.
In general, the awareness level of mammals was much
higher in Karalma and Ortok in comparison to Arstanbap.
With regard to the Red List species (State Agency
for Environment Protection and Forestry 2006), the only
mammals that were mentioned were the brown bear and the
Indian crested porcupine (Hystrix indica). The lynx (Lynx
lynx), which has been observed in these forests (Vorobeev
and der Ven 2003), was not mentioned by any of the
respondents.
Regarding the direct use of mammals, the respondents
were asked whether they used these animals for food or
medicinal purposes. A total of 83% (n = 142) of the
respondents said that they did not use mammals in any
form or for any purpose, and 12% mentioned using mam-
mals in medicines, while the rest reported eating mammals
as food. Rabbits were mentioned most commonly for their
use as food; however, other species such as the Eurasian
badger and the long-eared hedgehog (Hemiechinus auritus)
were found to be the most commonly consumed animals
for medicinal purposes. A few respondents in Karalma
noted that roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) were also useful
for treating different illnesses. In addition, the Siberian
ibex (Capra sibirica), which originated from higher alti-
tudes, was hunted for food as well as for medicinal
purposes.
Many elderly respondents pointed out that the popu-
lation of wild boar had decreased by 1990 due to regular
hunting. Besides, the farmers’ responses showed negative
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
attitudes towards species of wolves and foxes as they
prey on their sheep and poultry in winter. There were
no statistically significant age or gender differences in
the use of mammals in general, although older people
tended to use animals more for medicinal purposes (25%).
Differences were also observed between males (17%) and
females (7%).
Birds
Regarding the bird community, 42 birds (28% of the total
list of birds in the walnut fruit forests) were listed by
the respondents on the basis of an open-ended question
(Annex 2). People often mentioned the names of birds
which have a special value or effect on their livelihood, as
with the mammals.
However, it was a challenge for the researcher to anal-
yse and differentiate the birds’ local names, and some of
them had to be excluded due to their vagueness. For exam-
ple, owls were reported as being a well-known species
among the local people due to their negative impact, for
example, as owls prey on their chickens; however, peo-
ple were not able to differentiate between the various
species. Other birds such as tits, robins, pipits and warblers
were described as small birds and people did not pay any
particular attention to them.
The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos – 30%) and the
carrion crow (Corvus corone – 30%) were found to be
the most frequently mentioned species. The magpie (Pica
pica – 25%) was listed as the second most frequently men-
tioned species. Moreover, a few respondents indicated that
the presence of carrion crow and magpie in front of their
house was a sign of visitors or guests in their home, and
that it is a sign of bad luck if a carrion crow appears fre-
quently. The next relatively well-known species was the
nightingale (Luscinia megarhynchos – 25%), which is per-
ceived as an aesthetically pleasing bird due to its beautiful
song.
The results varied slightly between the three sites with
regard to the level of knowledge: in Karalma, the overall
60
50
40
Respondents (%)
30
20
10
0
Good
Figure 4. Expectations of respondents for the future of forest biodiversity.
209
knowledge of birds was comparatively high, and the rate
of non-forest birds was higher in Arstanbap. For example,
myna (Acridotheres tristis – 20%) was mentioned as the
most harmful species in relation to people’s livelihoods, as
well as for other small bird populations. A few respondents
stressed that the population of this species has increased
dramatically over the last couple of years. Unfortunately,
a few species such as the white-winged woodpecker
(Dendrocopos leucopterus), the nightingale and other spar-
rows have decreased visibly in numbers, as their eggs are
regularly attacked by mynas.
We did not find any significant relationship between
people’s knowledge of red listed birds (white-winged
woodpecker and golden eagle) on the one hand and respon-
dents’ age, gender ethnicity, education or position on the
other hand. The remaining birds, such as the short-toed
snake eagle (Circaetus gallicus), the cinereous vulture
(Aegypius monachus) and griffon species, were mentioned
in very limited numbers.
The partridge (Perdix dauurica), the chukar (Alectoris
chukar), the pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) and pigeon
species were mentioned as traditionally consumed birds.
Only a few respondents (4%, n = 142) stated that the
chukar and the pheasant may be used when it is possible to
catch them. Other people (96%) responded that they did not
use birds for any food or medicinal purposes, as their popu-
lation had decreased during the last few decades. However,
the responses did not differ significantly according to the
consumption and knowledge of the respondents.
Expectations of local people and awareness of existing
conservation activities
We also explored the respondents’ expectations for the
future (about 30 years from now) of forest biodiversity by
the open-ended questions (Figure 4). These expectations
varied between the three sites (χ 2 = 34.62, p < 0.001).
The majority of the respondents in Ortok and Karalma
(52% and 30%, respectively) had positive expectations,
Karalma
Ortok
Arstanbap
General
No change No enough No forest I do not know
resources anymore
Respondents expectations (n = 142)
210 G. Jalilova and H. Vacik
while only 6% of the respondents in Arstanbap had simi-
lar views. In contrast, the respondents in Arstanbap (46%),
followed by Karalma and Ortok (24% and 19%, respec-
tively), indicated that the forest may be lost if the current
socio-economic conditions remain negative during the next
10–15 years. In addition, some respondents pointed out
that they may not have access to enough resources. Others
in Karalma (28%), Arstanbap (17%) and Ortok (9%)
answered: I do not know what to expect or I have never
thought about it before. According to the demographic
factors, older people are more optimistic than younger peo-
ple (χ 2 = 28.42, p = 0.02). In addition, the more highly
educated respondents were more specific when describ-
ing problems as well as contributing factors (χ 2 = 16.62,
p = 0.03).
In order to know whether local people are aware of
any programmes or initiatives that exist in the field of
biodiversity conservation, further (open-ended) questions
were asked. Overall, a limited number of respondents
(24%) reported that they were aware of existing projects
that deal with conservation issues in general. None of the
mentioned projects focused on specific species. For exam-
ple, a Bashat non-governmental organization (NGO) in
Karalma, a Kyrgyz Swiss Forestry project in Ortok, the
NGO ‘TAZA’ and other scientific projects in Arstanbap
have organized a number of seminars and workshops, but
76% of respondents did not know of the existence of any
programme on biodiversity conservation. They also stated
that there had been more conservation activities in the past
(a regular monitoring for the wildlife species, different
awareness campaigns for school children, preparing spe-
cial nests for birds, installing feeding zones for mammals
in the forest).
The respondents’ familiarity with conservation was
also influenced by age (χ 2 = 16.06, p = 0.04), educa-
tion (χ 2 = 9.42, p = 0.05) and profession (χ 2 = 19.87,
p = 0.01). The older the respondent, the more familiar
they were with conservation activities. People with a high
or mid-level education and people involved in the forestry
sector showed a greater degree of familiarity with these
activities.
Discussion
Understanding the term ‘forest biodiversity’
Reaching a common understanding of the terms and con-
cepts involved in biodiversity conservation is perhaps
the biggest challenge for a successful implementation
(Acharya et al. 2004; Sassen and Jum 2007). The findings
in our study demonstrate that local people have different
perceptions of the term ‘biodiversity’.
For some stakeholders, the term was completely new
and therefore it was difficult to respond. Some of the
answers from respondents who work directly with forests
were quite clear and incorporated common Western defini-
tions. However, the majority of the respondents based their
answers on their historical background and the benefits
they had received from the forests, as well as their personal
experiences.
For example, when studying farmers’ perceptions of
biodiversity, Herzon and Mikk (2007) found that most
farmers’ notions of biodiversity differed from academic
definitions and that they held narrow views, often exclud-
ing the species directly related to farming. Matthies and
Bose (2008) discovered in their study on the public under-
standing of biodiversity that people have widely inaccurate
ideas on biodiversity and suggested that some educa-
tional messages should be implemented at the school level.
Similarly, Acharya et al. (2004), in their study in Nepal,
found that the use of the term varies widely and that a con-
siderable gap exists between the understanding and inter-
pretations of policymakers and forest users. These findings
imply that an awareness campaign would help to provide
clear evidence for biodiversity conservation. Furthermore,
Lazdinis et al. (2007) discussed the fact that such diverse
understandings may be a reason for the weak implementa-
tion of policy in the Lithuanian forests. Comparing their
findings with the Post-Soviet Governance in the walnut
fruit forests context, it is evident that an unambiguous def-
inition and clear usage of the term ‘biodiversity’ will help
to enhance the common understanding of the biodiversity
concept among all stakeholders.
Views and opinions on biodiversity loss
The results provide evidence that local people are
knowledgeable about the conditions and factors causing
biodiversity loss. The respondents had various views, rang-
ing from a focus on their livelihood to management issues.
Poverty has been viewed as one of the main factors affect-
ing biodiversity loss. Most of the respondents agreed that
poverty and socio-economic challenges made them more
dependent on forest resources. In Arstanbap, where the
forests are more degraded and the availability of resources
is comparatively limited, people evaluated the current con-
dition and future state of the forests more negatively than
in the other two sites. In this context, the local municipality
(Ail Okmot) is more active in terms of poverty allevia-
tion than the leshozes. The local municipality conducts a
preliminary socio-economic survey once a year and clas-
sifies households according to income brackets such as
‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. Accordingly, a subsidiary is pro-
vided to the poorer sections of the society (Schmidt 2007).
According to these summarized data on poverty from the
local municipalities, 34% of households in Arstanbap and
29% of households in Kara-Alma and Ortok were identi-
fied as being very poor (Fisher et al. 2004). In forest policy
legislation poverty alleviation is expressed as a priority in
the recent National Forest Programmes, as well as in CFM,
but evidently it is not translated into action at the local
level. In the same vein, Schmidt (2007) reported that this
lack of action for poverty alleviation was related to the lack
of understanding of the social dimensions of SFM in these
forests. Furthermore, many similar studies have supported
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
our finding that poverty is viewed as the main driving fac-
tor behind biodiversity loss (Wood et al. 2000; Veech 2003;
Adams et al. 2004; Cinner and Pollnac 2004; Brockington
et al. 2006; Fisher and Christopher 2007; Rahman et al.
2010).
Firewood collection was also mentioned as a critical
factor for biodiversity loss by many respondents. Firewood
is used as one of the main sources of energy for house-
holds in rural areas for cooking and heating, as it is the
cheapest and most accessible source for the majority of
people in developing countries (Shackleton 1993; Badola
1998; Jalilova 2007; Schmidt 2007; Rahman et al. 2009).
In a recent calculation, it was found that the annual fire-
wood consumption was approximately 5 times higher than
the annual increment in Arstanbap (Sorg 2007). From this,
it follows that the intensity of firewood consumption is far
from being sustainable in densely populated areas, and that
the growing population will inflict more pressure upon the
forests in the near future. Alternative sources of energy,
such as solar energy, biogas or efficient stoves, could pro-
vide possible solutions. These are already used in some
forested areas of other developing countries such as Nepal
(Sapkota 2009). In addition, the local NGO ‘TAZA’ has
been demonstrating such technology in forested areas since
2009 (Jalilova 2009).
A couple of studies (Matveev 1998; Gottschling et al.
2005) in these forests have stated that grazing is the most
dangerous factor for the regeneration of forest species,
especially in the spring when the ground is waterlogged
and the topsoil becomes more compacted, meaning that
the upper roots become too heavily damaged for future
reproduction. However, uncontrolled grazing was viewed
by very few respondents as a factor affecting biodiversity
loss; livestock grazing in forests is a common practice.
It seems that local people are not well aware of the
effects of uncontrolled grazing on forest species, or ignor-
ing the reality of the damage, as keeping cattle in each
household is traditional but grazing them in the forests is
illegal.
The lack of proper management activities was also
reported by some respondents as an important factor affect-
ing biodiversity loss. Their opinions were consistent across
all of the investigated sites. The reason for this could be
the lack of awareness of conservation activities among the
local population. Another reason could also be the former
technical forest policy, in which people were always sep-
arated from the forests and were not considered to be a
crucial part of forest management, as Schmidt (2007) also
stated in his study.
Local people’s knowledge of wildlife
Mammals
Many studies (Kassilly 2000; Gurung 2004; Altrichter
2006; Lhamo 2008; Boonzaaier 2009) argue that the
knowledge and attitudes of people with regard to
mammals constitute a critical issue for the improvement of
211
conservation efforts and people’s livelihoods. The results
of this study indicate that the local people’s knowledge
of mammals varied between communities. The people in
Karalma and Ortok had a high level of awareness; how-
ever, their knowledge was mostly related to the relatively
high-density species that the local people had more oppor-
tunities to observe than in Arstanbap. In addition, people
were more likely to remember species that had direct value
and/or a negative impact on their livelihood.
Related studies of knowledge and attitude (positive
or negative) of people towards mammals, which have
been examined elsewhere, have shown that the awareness
of conservation is strongly related to income-generating
activities (Gillingham and Lee 1999; Tessema et al.
2010). According to Gillingham and Lee (1999), income-
generating activities in Selous Game Reserve in south-east
Tanzania had a positive influence on local people’s per-
ceptions of the benefits of wildlife and the awareness of
the project’s activities. In another similar study, Tessema
et al. (2010) demonstrated that local residents generally
held positive attitudes towards wildlife due to the fact
that it attracts tourists, creates hunting opportunities dur-
ing droughts, provides a source of income and generates
pride in the traditional tribal culture. Negative attitudes are
mostly related to human–wildlife conflicts. For instance,
Kaltenborn et al. (1999), in a study in Norway, found that
people appreciated contact with carnivores and expressed
interest in their conservation; however, in contrast, some
sheep farmers expressed a negative attitude towards these
species, as they were often in conflict with them. Similarly,
Anthony (2007), in a study in Kruger National Park in
South Africa, demonstrated that people’s negative atti-
tudes were primarily linked with problems associated with
animals causing damage around the park. According to
Lhamo (2008), who studied human–elephant conflicts in
southern Bhutan, about 50% of respondents showed neg-
ative attitudes towards elephants due to significant crop
damage. Another case study from Bhutan on wildlife con-
servation, which was reported by Jackson et al. (2003),
showed that 60% of the respondents from local communi-
ties did not favour predator species which caused the loss
of livestock.
In addition to the aforementioned relationship, our
results indicate that demographic variables such as age and
gender seem to be predictive indicators, but this was not
statistically proven. Men have a higher chance of seeing
animals, as they spend more time in the forests in compar-
ison to women. For example, Gillingham and Lee (1999)
and Al-Shayaa et al. (2007) have reported in their case
studies that the marginalized position of women in the
society is reflected in their lack of awareness of and neg-
ative attitudes towards animals, as they are less engaged
with and informed about public issues and conservation
activities. Another study on brown bears in Slovenia by
Kaczensky et al. (2000) reported that previous negative
experiences with and fear of the animal created a more
negative attitude. It was usually women who had a more
negative attitude, possibly because they feared the bears
212 G. Jalilova and H. Vacik
more. With regard to age, in our case study, older people
were more concerned about animals and their conservation,
a fact which is supported by similar studies. Al-Shayaa
et al. (2007), who studied ibex conservation in Saudi
Arabia, reported that older people were more interested
and expected to see more information about ibex conser-
vation activities. In contrast, some studies have shown that
the older the respondent, the more negative their attitude
towards animals is (Bath 1989; Stevens et al. 1994; Gurung
2004; Roskaft et al. 2007). This could be due to their neg-
ative interactions and experiences with the animals in the
past.
Birds
Birds are seen as a very common faunal group by local
people and consequently the respondents did not pay very
much attention to them (Owusu 2008). The results of this
study indicate that the birds which have aesthetic quali-
ties or which are regarded as omens are most commonly
recognized by local people, although the results were not
significantly different across the three sites. This result is
consistent with those reported by Lopez-del-Toro et al.
(2009) in Mexico, where the farmers of shade coffee plan-
tations also revealed such attitudes towards birds. Similar
observations were reported in published studies such as
Mokuku and Mokuku (2004), Herold (2005), Kaltenborn
et al. (2006) and Owusu (2008).
Regarding the Red List species, the respondents’
knowledge of both mammals and birds was relatively lim-
ited; this may be due to the actual status of the wildlife
at this moment in these forests and the weak monitoring
mechanisms for their protection. Unfortunately, there are
no other terrestrial ecosystems with comparable produc-
tivity and an abundance of plants and wildlife apart from
the deciduous forests 2000–3000 km away. In this context,
stronger protective measures and monitoring mechanisms
should be implemented (Herold 2005).
People’s expectations and awareness of existing
conservation activities
Regarding the respondents’ expectations for the future sta-
tus of biodiversity in the walnut fruit forest, people have
more pessimistic than optimistic views. Some fear that
forest biodiversity will no longer be maintained. There
was some concern that forests will lose their character
due to the high pressure exerted by humans; people from
Arstanbap were especially pessimistic with regard to this
issue, as they have a greater scarcity of forest resources
than those in Karalma and Ortok.
However, it seems that the active participation of
people in the walnut fruit forests in conservation activ-
ities more likely depends on the improvement of socio-
economic conditions of local people rather than the lack
of awareness.
Other investigations elsewhere have produced similar
results; for example, Vodouhe et al. (2010) in Benin found
that benefits from reserves and different project activities
are strong incentives for people to perceive conservation in
a positive light. Baral and Heinen (2007), in their study in
Nepal, reported that the effective use of natural resources
and improved livelihoods, to some extent, changed peo-
ple’s perceptions of biodiversity conservation in a positive
way. Silori (2007), in India, demonstrated that the pro-
motion of some alternative income-generating activities
designed to reduce the dependence on natural resources
produced a positive response from local people regarding
conservation activities.
Regarding the demographic factors, our findings are
supported by other case studies which have found that
the education level, professional background and age of
respondents are predictive indicators of awareness towards
conservation (Obua et al. 1998; Mehta and Heinen 2001;
Sekhar 2003; Xu et al. 2006; Anthony 2007; Menzel and
Bögeholz 2008; Tessema et al. 2010; Vodouhe et al. 2010).
Thus, capacity building on wildlife as well as a wide com-
munication with local people and the forestry sector should
be fundamental in addressing conservation management in
the future (Rönnback et al. 2007).
Concluding comments
The findings of this study show that local people are
well aware of the concept of forest biodiversity. However,
this concept was interpreted in different ways, depend-
ing on the respondent’s profession and the benefits gained
from the forests. The respondents’ knowledge of wildlife
was relatively limited and varied between sites. People
were more concerned with species of wildlife which
have direct and indirect effects on their livelihoods.
Therefore, there is an urgent need to raise awareness of
the importance of biodiversity, especially wildlife through
learning, training and media at different levels. These
approaches would encourage further conservation activ-
ities. Moreover, applied research on wildlife population
dynamics and habitat requirements, especially on mam-
mals, are needed for undertaking further appropriate mea-
sures, as there are not enough data available on their current
status.
Regarding the current conditions of biodiversity in gen-
eral, people have clear and positive intentions for conserva-
tion. However, it seems that people will be unable to reduce
their impact on forest resources in the future due to the cur-
rent socio-economic challenges and the shortage of alter-
native resources for their immediate needs, such as energy
for their daily survival. Moreover, decision-makers in for-
est management should emphasize that biodiversity con-
servation also depends heavily on people’s socio-economic
conditions. Therefore, there is a need for a strong link
between forest users and decision-makers as well as strong
policy mechanisms for the establishment of better conser-
vation plans and the development of income-generating
activities in the long run.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Acknowledgements
We thank Ainura Zhusupova for her assistance and support dur-
ing the fieldwork for this study. We are also very grateful to
the Ecological Public Foundation ‘TAZA’ for their technical
help, as well as the Austrian Orient Association - One World
Scholarship Programme for providing the funding to make this
research available.
References
Abdymomunov RA. 2001. Conclusions of the First National
Census conducted in 1999. Oblast Jalalabad. Book III. Series
R. Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): National Statistical Committee of
the Kyrgyz Republic.
Acharya U, Petheram J, Reid R. 2004. Concepts and perceptions
of biodiversity in community forestry, Nepal. Small-Scale
For Econ Manage Policy. 3(3):401–410.
Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J,
Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W. 2004. Biodiversity
conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science.
306(5699):1146–1149.
Al-Shayaa MS, El Hag EH, Muneer SE. 2007. The role of peo-
ple’s knowledge and attitudes in conservation of wildlife in
the natural reservations: a case study of the Ibex Reservation
in Al-Rizadh region, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Biol Sci.
14(1):123–135.
Altrichter M. 2006. Wildlife in the life of local people of the semi-
arid Argentine Chaco. Biodiv Conserv. 15(6):2719–2736.
Anthony B. 2007. The dual nature of parks: attitudes of neigh-
bouring communities towards Kruger National Park, South
Africa. Environ Conserv. 34(3):236–245.
Ashimov KS. 1998. The condition of and prospects for scientific
research in the Kyrgyzstan walnut fruit forests. In: Blaser J,
Carter J, Gilmour D, editors. Biodiversity and sustainable use
of Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests. Cambridge (UK): Gland.
p. 87–90.
Badola R. 1998. Attitudes of local people towards conservation
and alternatives to forest resources: a case study from the
lower Himalayas. Biodiv Conserv. 7(10):1245–1259.
Baral N, Heinen JT. 2007. Resources use, conservation atti-
tudes, management interventions and park-people relations
in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal. Environ Conserv.
34(1):64–72.
Bath AJ. 1989. The public wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone
National Park. Soc Nat Resour. 2(1):297–306.
Beishebaev K. 1970. Short-toed snake eagle is a rare breeding
bird in the walnut fruit forests. Frunze (Kyrgyzstan): Press
Kirgizia.
Bizerril M. 2004. Children’s perceptions of Brazilian Cerrado
landscapes and biodiversity. J Environ Educ. 35(4):47–59.
Blaser J, Carter J, Gilmour D., editors. 1998. Biodiversity
and sustainable use of Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests.
Cambridge (UK): Gland. p. 87–90.
Boissiere M, Sheil D, Basuki I, Wan M, Le H. 2009. Can
engaging local people’s interests reduce forest degradation
in Central Vietnam? Biodiv Conserv. 18(10):2743–2757.
Boonzaaier C. 2009. Rural people’s perceptions regarding
wildlife conservation – the case of Masebe Nature Reserve
in the Limpopo Province of South Africa [Internet]. Paper
for the 3rd European Conference on African Studies;
2009 Jun 4–7; Leipzig, Germany; [cited 2010 Mar
26]. p. 1–16. Available from: http://aegis-eu.org/archive/
ecas2009/panels_round_tables/155.htm.
Brockington D, Igoe J, Schmidt-Saltau K. 2006. Conservation,
human rights, and poverty reduction. Conserv Biol.
20(1):250–252.
Carter J, Steenhof B, Haldimann R, Akenshaev N. 2003.
Collaborative Forest Management in Kyrgyzstan: moving
213
from top-down to bottom-up decision-making. London (UK):
International Institute for Environment and Development.
(Gatekeeper 108. Sustainable Agriculture and Rural
Livelihood Programme). p. 6–7.
Central Forest Inventory. 1990–1991. Development and organi-
zation project of forest management in Kaba model forest
range. Kyrgzysles. Tom I. p. 1–5. Russian.
Chang YY. 2009. Use of forest resources, traditional forest-
related knowledge and livelihood of forest dependent
communities: cases in South Korea. For Ecol Manage.
257(10):2027–2034.
Charnley S, Fischer AP, Jones ET. 2007. Integrating tradi-
tional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity
conservation in the Pacific Northwest. For Ecol Manage.
246(1):14–28.
Cinner JE, Pollnac RB. 2004. Poverty, perceptions and planning:
why socioeconomics matter in the management of Mexican
reefs. Ocean Coastal Manage. 47(9–10):479–493.
de Groot J, Jalilova G. 2004. Bird survey in the walnut fruit forests
of Kava Leshoz, Kyrgyzstan. Jalalabat (Kyrgyzstan). Orech-
Les Scientific Project Report. p. 1–13.
Fiallo EA, Jacobson SK. 1995. Local communities and pro-
tected areas: attitudes of rural residents towards conserva-
tion and Machalilla Park. Ecuador. Environ Conserv. 22(3):
241–249.
Fischer J, Lindenmayer DB. 2007. Landscape modification and
habitat fragmentation: a synthesis. Glob Ecol Biogeogr.
16(3):265–280.
Fisher B, Christopher T. 2007. Poverty and biodiversity: mea-
suring the overlap of human poverty and the biodiversity
hotspots. Ecol Econ. 62(1):93–101.
Fisher RJ, Schmidt K, Steenhof B, Akenshaev N. 2004. Poverty
and forestry: a case study of Kyrgyzstan with reference to
other countries in West and Central Asia. FAO Livelihood
Support Programme. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture
Organization. Working Paper 13.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2009. Forest biodiversity
[Internet]. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization;
[cited 2009 Nov 30]. Available from: www.fao.org/
biodiversity.
Forest Inventory. 2003. State accounting of forest condition.
Jalalabat (Kyrgyzstan). Report.
Gillingham S, Lee P. 1999. The impact of wildlife-related ben-
efits on the conservation attitudes of local people around
the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ Conserv.
26(3):218–228.
Goslesagenstvo. 1996. Walnut fruit forests action plan. Bishkek
(Kyrgyzstan): Kyrgyz Government and Intercooperation.
Gottschling H, Amatov I, Lazkov G. 2005. Zur Ökologie und
Flora der Walnuß – Wildobst-Wälder in Süd-Kirgistan. Arch
Nat Lands. 44(1):85–129.
Gurung MK. 2004. Human dimensions in one horned rhinoceros
conservation in Royal Chitwan National Park Nepal [master’s
thesis]. [Vienna (Austria)]: University of Natural Resources
and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU).
Harada K. 2003. Attitudes of local people towards conservation
and Gunung Haliman National Park in West Java, Indonesia.
The Japanese Forestry Society and Springer-Verlag Tokyo. J
For Res. 8(4):271–282.
Herold B. 2005. The avian communities and their habitat asso-
ciations of the walnut fruit forests of Southern Kyrgyzstan
[master’s thesis]. [Greifswald (Germany)]: University of
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University Greifswald.
Herzon I, Mikk M. 2007. Farmer’s perceptions of biodiversity
and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment
schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Nat
Conserv. 15(1):10–25.
Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Salvorel
S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, et al. 2005.
214 G. Jalilova and H. Vacik
Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus
of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 75(1):3–35.
Hyseni M. 2008. Perception of and attitudes towards biodiversity
by experts and laypersons in Kosovo – a key to conser-
vation [master’s thesis]. [Zurich (Switzerland)]: Institute of
Environmental Sciences, University of Zurich.
International Monetary Fund. 2007. Kyrgyz Republic: poverty
reduction strategy paper – country development strategy
(2007–2010). Washington (DC): International Monetary
Fund. Report No. 07/193.
Jackson R, Wangchuk R, Dadul J. 2003. Local people’s attitudes
wildlife conservation in the Hemis National Park with spe-
cial reference to the conservation of large predators. Sonoma
(CA): The Snow Leopard Conservancy. SLC Field Series
Document No. 7.
Jalilova G. 2007. Effects of different types of forest manage-
ment activities on bird diversity in the walnut fruit forests in
Kyrgyzstan [master thesis]. [Vienna (Austria)]: University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU).
Jalilova G. 2009. Biodiversity and conservation and effective uti-
lization of the walnut fruit forests. Jalal-Abad (Kyrgyzstan):
Ecological Public Foundation ‘TAZA.’ Interim Report.
Kaczensky P, Blazic M, Bath A, Szinovatz V, Gossow H. 2000.
The brown bear – a highly valued, controversial species in
Slovenia. In: Kaczensky P, editor. Report of the Institute of
Wildlife Biology and Game Management at the Agricultural
University of Vienna. Vienna (Austria).
Kaltenborn B, Bjerke T, Nyahongo J, Williams D. 2006. Animal
preferences and acceptability of wildlife management actions
around Serengeti National Park, Tanzania. Biodiv Conserv.
15(14):4633–4649.
Kaltenborn BP, Bjerke T, Vittersø J. 1999. Attitudes towards
large carnivores among sheep farmers, wildlife managers
and research biologists in Norway. Hum Dimens Wildlife.
4(3):57–73.
Kashkarov DN. 1926. Central Asian museum expedition results in
Sary-Chelek. Izvestia Sredne-Aziatskogo komiteta po delam
muzeev I ohrani pamyatnikov ctarini, iskusstva i prirodi.
96(2):1–150. Russian.
Kassilly FD. 2000. Human dimensions in wildlife resources man-
agement in Kenya: a study of people-wildlife relations around
two conservation areas [PhD thesis]. [Vienna (Austria)]:
University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences
(BOKU).
Khadka C, Vacik H. 2006. Criteria and indicators for commu-
nity based sustainable forest management. Case study from
Nawalpur Saraswati (Basamadi) Community Forest User
Group, Makawanpur District, Nepal [master thesis]. Vienna
(Austria): International Mountain Forestry, University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU).
Kolov O. 1998. Ecological characteristics of the walnut fruit
forests of Southern Kyrgyzstan. In: Blaser J, Carter J,
Gilmour D, editors. Biodiversity and sustainable use of
Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests. Cambridge (UK): Gland.
p. 59–61.
Kouplevatskaya I. 2006. The national forest programme as an
element of forest policy reform: finding from Kyrgyzstan.
Unasylva. 57(225):15–22.
Lazdinis M, Angelstam P, Lazdinis I. 2007. Maintenance of
forest biodiversity in a post-Soviet governance model: per-
ceptions by local actors in Luthiana. Environ Manage. 40(1):
20–33.
Lhamo N. 2008. Extent of human-elephant conflicts and the
threat to elephant populations in Southern Bhutan [master’s
dissertation]. [Vienna (Austria)]: University of Natural
Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU).
Lindenmayer DB, Franklin JF. 2002. Conserving forest
biodiversity: a comprehensive multiscaled approach.
Washington (DC): Island Press.
Lopez-del-Toro P, Andresen E, Barraza L, Estrada A. 2009.
Attitudes and knowledge of shade-coffee farmers towards
vertebrates and their ecological functions. Trop Conserv Sci.
2(3):299–318.
Matthies P, Bose E. 2008. How many species are there? Public
understanding and awareness of biodiversity in Switzerland.
Hum Ecol. 36(5):731–742.
Matveev PN. 1998. Disturbance of the ecological balance in
walnut fruit forests by human pressure. In: Blaser J, Carter
J, Gilmour D, editors. Biodiversity and sustainable use of
Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests. Cambridge (UK): Gland.
p. 125–128.
Mehta JK, Heinen JT. 2001. Does community-based conservation
shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study
from Nepal. Environ Manage. 28(2):165–177.
Menzel S, Bogeholz S. 2008. The loss of biodiversity as a chal-
lenge for sustainable development: How do pupils in Chile
and Germany perceive resource dilemmas? Res Sci Educ.
39(4):429–447.
Ministry of Environmental Protection. 1998. Biodiversity strat-
egy and action plan. Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): Ministry of
Environmental Protection.
Mokuku T, Mokuku C. 2004. The role of indigenous knowl-
edge in biodiversity conservation in the Lesotho Highlands:
exploring indigenous epistemology. South Afr J Environ
Educ. 21:50–60.
Mukherjee A, Borad CK. 2004. Integrated approach towards con-
servation of Gir National Park: the last refuge of Asiatic
Lions, India. Biodiv Conserv. 13(1):2165–2182.
Obua J, Banana AY, Turyahabwe N. 1998. Attitudes of local com-
munities towards forest management practices in Uganda:
the case of Budongo Forest Reserve. Commonw For Rev.
77(2):113–118.
Owusu EH. 2008. The perceptions of local communities towards
the conservation of birds in an improved bird area in Ghana.
J Afr Stud. 3:111–116.
Rahman MM, Ainun N, Vacik H. 2009. Anthropogenic dis-
turbances and plant diversity of the Madhupur Sal forests
(Shorea robusta C.F. Gaertn.) of Bangladesh. Int J Biodiv Sci
Ecosyst Serv Manage. 5(3):162–173.
Rahman SA, Farhana KM, Imtaij A, Wachira SW, Rahman MA,
Saha S. 2010. Sustainable forest management for poverty
reduction through agroforestry options: lesson from the
remote uplands of Eastern Bangladesh. Acad J Plant Sci.
3(1):11–18.
Rönnbäck P, Crona B, Ingwall L. 2007. The return of ecosystem
goods and services in replanted mangrove forests: perspec-
tives from local communities in Kenya. Environ Conserv.
34(1):313–324.
Roskaft E, Händel B, Bjerke T, Kaltenborn BP. 2007. Human
attitudes towards large carnivores in Norway. Wildlife Biol.
10(5):1328–1331.
Samusenko VF. 1992. Soils. In: The walnut fruit forests of
the south Kyrgyzstan. Part I. Physical-geographic condition.
Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): Ilim. p. 151–155. Russian.
Sapkota B. 2009. Community forest as a source of rural energy,
case study from Mid Hills of Nepal, from bio energy per-
spectives [master thesis]. [Vienna (Austria)]: University of
Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU).
Sassen M, Jum C. 2007. Assessing local perspectives in a forested
landscape of Central Cameroon. For Trees Livelihoods.
17:23–42.
Schmidt K. 2007. Livelihood and forest management in
transition-knowledge and strategies of local people in the
walnut fruit forests in Kyrgyzstan [PhD thesis]. London
(UK): University of Reading.
Sekhar NU. 2003. Local people’s attitudes towards conservation
and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India.
J Environ Manage. 69(4):339–347.
 International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Shackleton CM. 1993. Fuelwood harvesting and sustainable uti-
lization in a communal grazing ground and protected area of
the eastern Transvaal Lowveld. Biol Conserv. 63(3):247–254.
Silori CS. 2007. Perception of local people towards conservation
of forest resources in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, north-
western Himalaya, India. Biodiv Conserv. 16(1):211–222.
Sorg A. 2007. Selected aspects of agroforestry in Southern
Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests. Orech-Les Project,
Bishkek/Jalalabat, Kyrgyzstan Traineeship Report (unpub-
lished).
Sorg JP, Venglovskii BI. 2001. Biodiversity and sustainable man-
agement of Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests: development
of new silvilcultural approaches. Proposal for ORECH-LES
project (unpublished). Bishkek.
State Agency for Environment Protection and Forestry under the
Government of the Kyrgyz Republic, Institute for Biology
and Pedology of the National Academy of Sciences of
the Kyrgyz Republic, Ecological Movement ‘ALEINE’ of
Kyrgyzstan. 2006. Kyrgyz Republic red data book. 2nd
ed. Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): State Agency for Environment
Protection and Forestry.
State Forest Service of the Kyrgyz Republic and Intercooperation
Kyrgyzstan, editors. 2004a. National Forestry Programme
in Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): State Forest
Service.
State Forest Service of the Kyrgyz Republic and Intercooperation
Kyrgyzstan, editors. 2004b. Concept of forestry sector devel-
opment in Kyrgyz Republic. Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): State
Forest Service.
Statistical Package for Social Statistics (SPSS) 15 for Windows
[Internet]. [cited 2010 Nov 1]. Available from: www.spss.
com.
215
Stevens TN, More TA, Glass RJ. 1994. Public attitudes about
coyotes in New England. Soc Nat Resour. 7(1):56–66.
Tessema ME, Ashenafi Z, Lileholm R, Williams NL. 2010.
Community attitudes towards wildlife conservation in
Ethiopia. Soc Nat Resour. 23(6):489–506.
Trombulak SC, Omland KS, Robinson JA, Lusk JJ, Fleischner
TL, Domroese M. 2004. Principles of conservation biology:
recommended guidelines for conservation literacy from the
education committee of the Society for Conserving Biology.
Conserv Biol. 18(1):1180–1190.
Veech JA. 2003. Incorporating socio-economic factors into
the analysis of biodiversity hotspots. Appl Geogr. 23(1):
73–88.
Venglovskii BI. 1998. Potential and constraints for the develop-
ment of the walnut fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan. In: Blaser J,
Carter J, Gilmour D, editors. Biodiversity and sustainable use
of Kyrgyzstan’s walnut fruit forests. Cambridge (UK): Gland.
p. 73–76.
Vodouhe FG, Coulibaly O, Adegbili A, Sinsin B. 2010.
Community perception of biodiversity conservation within
protected areas in Benin. For Policy Econ. 12(7):505–512.
Vorobeev GG, der Ven JV. 2003. Looking at mammals in
Kyrgyzia. Bishkek (Kyrgyzstan): Central Asia.
Vorobiev GG, Chichikin UN. 1966. Vertical distribution of
birds in the Sarichelek reserve. Frunze (Kirgizia). Report.
Russian.
Wood A, Stedman-Edwards P, Mang J, editors. 2000. The root
causes of biodiversity loss. London (UK): Earthscan.
Xu J, Liding C, Lu Y, Fu B. 2006. Local people’s percep-
tions as decision support for protected area management in
Wolong Biosphere Reserve, China. Environ Manage. 78(4):
362–372.
216 G. Jalilova and H. Vacik

Annex 1. Names of mentioned mammals.

Latin names English names

1 Hemiechinus auritus Long-eared hedgehog

2 Canis lupus Grey wolf
3 Canis aureus Golden jackal
4 Vulpes vulpes Red fox
5 Ursus arctos Brown bear
6 Mustela nivalis Weasel
7 Meles meles Eurasian badger
8 Sus scrofa Wild boar
9 Capreolus capreolus Roe deer
10 Marmota caudata Long-tailed marmot
11 Hystrix indica Indian crested porcupine
12 Ondatra zibethicus Muskrat
13 Lepus tolai Tolai hare
14 Rattus turkestanicus Turkestan rat

Annex 2. Names of mentioned birds.

Latin names English names

1 Perdix Dauurica Daurian partridge

2 Alectoris chukar Chukar
3 Phasianus colchicus Common pheasant
4 Dendrocopos leucopterus White-winged woodpecker
5 Upupa epops Common hoopoe
6 Coracias garrulus European roller
7 Alcedo atthis Common kingfisher
8 Cuculus canorus Eurasian cuckoo
9 Bubo bubo Eurasian eagle owl
10 Otus scops Eurasian scops owl
11 Columba oenas Stock pigeon
12 Columba palumbus Common wood pigeon
13 Streptopelia senegalensis Laughing dove
14 Rallus aquaticus Water rail
15 Scolopax rusticola Eurasian woodcock
16 Milvus migrans-lineatus Black-eared kite
17 Gypaetus barbatus Lammergeier
18 Gyps himalayensis Himalayan griffon
19 Aegypius monachus Cinereous vulture
20 Circaetus gallicus Short-toed snake eagle
21 Accipiter nisus Eurasian sparrowhawk
22 Accipiter gentilis Northern Goshawk
23 Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle
24 Falco tinnunculus Common kestrel
25 Falco subbuteo Eurasian hobby
26 Corvus monedula Eurasian jackdaw
27 Pica pica Black-billed magpie
28 Corvus corone Carrion crow
29 Corvus corax Common raven
30 Oriolus oriolus Eurasian golden oriole
31 Myophonus caeruleus Blue whistling thrush
32 Turdus merula Eurasian blackbird
33 Turdus viscivorus Mistle thrush
34 Luscinia megarhynchos Common nightingale
35 Phoenicurus coeruleocephalus Blue-capped redstart
36 Sturnus vulgaris Common starling
37 Acridotheres tristis Common myna
38 Remiz coronatus Penduline tit
39 Parus major Great tit
40 Hirundo rustica Barn swallow
41 Alauda arvensis Eurasian skylark
42 Passer domesticus House sparrow