Abstract

Background: The environment sustains human life through essential resources, yet biodiversity is rapidly declining due to anthropogenic activities. Sacred forests, embedded in cultural and religious traditions, have historically aided in conserving both biodiversity and cultural heritage. Aims: This paper explores public understanding of environmental conservation, focusing on the role of sacred forests in sustaining biodiversity in India. The role of cultural values in shaping environmental attitudes, and the major anthropogenic threats to nature, in order to identify effective conservation strategies. Objectives: This study aims to assess public awareness and understanding of environmental conservation and its significance; examine the influence of cultural beliefs and values on people’s relationship with the environment; identify major anthropogenic threats; and explore practical, culturally sensitive solutions for effective conservation. Material: The study employed structured interviews (n = 75) and telephonic interviews (n = 20) across diverse localities of Lucknow. Participants (15–65 years) included students, professionals, homemakers, and unemployed individuals. The study has utilised interview schedule and questionnaire to collect data and descriptively analysed, and qualitative responses thematically coded. Result: Environmental awareness among respondents is growing, yet consistent action is hindered by infrastructural, educational, and cultural barriers. Traditional ecological knowledge systems, like sacred forests, remains largely unfamiliar. While many respondents acknowledge the environmental benefits only a small fraction recognise the significance of species extinction. Deforestation, habitat loss, festival-related pollution, and poor waste management persist as major concerns. Although respondents expect institutional support, they also acknowledge the importance of personal responsibility in conservation. Conclusion: Effective conservation demands reviving traditional ecological practices, promoting sustainable consumption, and fostering collaboration among government, NGOs, and citizens. Bridging the awareness action gap requires stronger institutional support alongside active public participation to achieve ecological balance.

• 1.   Wilson E.O., University H., editors. Biodiversity [Internet]. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1988. Available from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/ catalog/989/biodiversity
• 2.   IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bonn (Germany): IPBES Secretariat; 2020
• 3.   WWF. Living planet report 2020: Bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Gland (Switzerland): WWF; 2020.
• 4.   IUCN. 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Gland (Switzerland): IUCN; 2004.
• 5.   Attenborough D. David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet [Internet]. Climate in Global Cultures and Histories: Promoting Climate Literacy Across Disciplines; 2025 Feb 14 [cited Month Date, Year]. Available from: https:// www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/davidattenborough-a-life-on-our-planet-2020/
• 6.   Costanza R., d’Arge R., Groot R., Farber S., Grasso M., Hannon G., et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature. Report of Workshop organised by NCEAS, Santa Barbara, Calif (1996). 1996 Nov 30; 387.
• 7.   White K., Habib R., Hardisty D.J. How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. Journal of Marketing. 2019; 83(3): 22–49.
• 8.   Johnson D., Johnson R. Making cooperative learning work. Theory Practice. 1999; 38(2): 67–73.
• 9.   Hughes J.D., Chandran M.D.S. Sacred groves around the Earth: An overview. In: Ramakrishnan P.S., Saxena K.G., Chandrashekara UM, editors. Conserving the sacred for biodiversity management. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH; 1998. p. 69–86.
• 10.   Bhagwat S.A., Rutte C. Sacred groves: Potential for biodiversity management. Front Ecol Environ. 2006; 4(10): 519–24.
• 11.   Kisku A.K., Bhakat R.K., Guha A. Sacred groves: Traditional biodiversity conservation method of Santhal community, West Midnapore, West Bengal. Indian J Tradit Knowl. 2009; 8(4): 569–73.
• 12.   Negi CS. Sacred natural sites and biodiversity conservation in the Himalaya: A case study from Uttarakhand, India. J Mt Sci. 2010; 7(5): 449–56.
• 13.   Potts R. Evolution and Climate Variability. Science. 1996 Aug 16; 273: 922–3125 IJRA/Volume 11 Number 2/July - December 2025
• 14.   Hinkel J., Klein R.J.T. Integrating knowledge to assess coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise: the development of the DIVA tool. Global Environ Change. 2009; 19(3): 384-95.
• 15.   UNFCCC. The Paris Agreement [Internet]. Available from: https://unfccc.int/processand-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-parisagreement
• 16.   IPCC. Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2021.
• 17.   Berkes F. Community conserved areas: Policy issues in historic and contemporary context. Conserv Lett. 2009; 2(1): 19–24.
• 18.   Okely J. Anthropological Practice: Fieldwork and the Ethnographic Method. 1st ed. London: Routledge; 2012.
• 19.   Ripple W.J., Estes J.A., Beschta R.L., Wilmers C.C., Ritchie E.G., Hebblewhite M., et al. Status and ecological effects of the world’s largest carnivores. Science. 2014; 343(6167): 1241484.
• 20.   Gadgil M., Guha R. This Fissured Land: An Ecological History of India. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press; 1992. J Polit Ecol. 1994 Dec; 1:7.
• 21.   Kothari C.R. Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. 2nd ed. New Delhi: New Age International Pvt Ltd Publishers; 2013.
• 22.   Wilson E.O., editor. Biodiversity. Washington (DC): National Academy of Sciences/ Smithsonian Institution; 1988.

Data Sharing Statement

Funding