Why should local loss and colonial benefit be studied together while studying deforestation?

Correct answer: It shows that benefits and burdens of resources were not equally shared

The direct answer is option A: studying local loss and colonial benefit together shows that resource benefits and burdens were not shared equally. Deforestation was not simply cutting trees; it changed who controlled forests and who could use them. Colonial governments and commercial companies gained timber, revenue, railways, and plantations, while local communities could lose fuel, fruits, grazing land, shifting-cultivation areas, and customary rights. Option A is correct because it connects both sides and explains inequality. Option B is wrong because everyone did not receive equal benefits. Option C is wrong because local society was affected deeply by restrictions and loss of livelihoods. Option D is wrong because colonial rule gained revenue and useful forest products. Exam cue: always compare the gain of the rulers or companies with the loss of local people.