Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Linking Attitudes, Policy, and Forest Cover Change in Buffer Zone Communities of Chitwan National Park, Nepal

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Deforestation in Nepal threatens the functioning of complex social–ecological systems, including rural populations that depend on forests for subsistence, as well as Nepal’s biodiversity and other ecosystem services. Nepal’s forests are particularly important to the nation’s poorest inhabitants, as many depend upon them for daily survival. Two-thirds of Nepal’s population relies on forests for sustenance, and these pressures are likely to increase in the future. This, coupled with high population densities and growth rates, highlights the importance of studying the relationship between human communities, forest cover trends through time, and forest management institutions. Here, we used surveys to explore how household attitudes associated with conservation-related behaviors in two rural communities—one that has experienced significant forest loss, and the other forest gain—compare with forest cover trends as indicated by satellite-derived forest-loss and -regeneration estimates between 2005 and 2013. Results found a significant difference in attitudes in the two areas, perhaps contributing to and reacting from current forest conditions. In both study sites, participation in community forestry strengthened support for conservation, forest conservation-related attitudes aligned with forest cover trends, and a negative relationship was found between economic status and having supportive forest conservation-related attitudes. In addition, on average, respondents were not satisfied with their district forest officers and did not feel that the current political climate in Nepal supported sustainable forestry. These findings are important as Nepal’s Master Plan for the Forestry Sector has expired and the country is in the process of structuring a new Forestry Sector Strategy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more information about SeedTree, visit: http://www.seedtree.org/.

References

  • Acharya U, Petheram RJ, Reid R (2004) Concepts and perceptions of biodiversity in community forestry, Nepal. Small Scale For Econ Manag Policy 3:401–410. doi:10.1007/s11842-004-0028-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Adhikari B, Di Falco S, Lovett JC (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ 48:245–257. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33:1101–1114. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2001) Collective action, property rights, and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Polit Soc 29(4):485–514. doi:10.1177/0032329201029004002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ostrom E (2008) Decentralization and community-based forestry: learning from experience. In: Webb EL, Shivakoti GP (eds) Decentralization, forests and rural communities: policy outcomes in Southeast Asia. Sage Publications, New Delhi, pp 44–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Ribot JC (1999) Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. J Dev Areas 33:473–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson KP, Ostrom E (2008) Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sci 41:71–93. doi:10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JEM (1992) Community forestry ten years in review. FAO, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • Banskota K, Sharma B, Sharma U, Rijal A (1996) Royal Chitwan National Park after twenty years: an assessment of values, threats, and opportunities. King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber JS, Shivakoti GP, Axinn WG, Gajurel K (1997) Sampling strategies for rural settings: a detailed example from Chitwan Valley Family Study, Nepal. Nepal Popul J 6:193–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Benoit C, Jansson M, Millar A, Phillips R (2005) Community-academic research on hard-to-reach populations: benefits and challenges. Qual Health Res 15:263–282. doi:10.1177/1049732304267752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard RH (2002) Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative methods, 3rd edn. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek

    Google Scholar 

  • Birendra KC, Stainback GA, Chhetri BBK (2014) Community users’ and experts’ perspective on community forestry in Nepal: a SWOT–AHP analysis. For Trees Livelihoods 23:217–231. doi:10.1080/14728028.2014.929982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bista DB (1987) People of Nepal, 5th edn. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty RN (2001) Stability and outcomes of common property institutions in forestry: evidence from the Terai region of Nepal. Ecol Econ 36:341–353. doi:10.1016/S0921-8009(00)00237-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chevan A, Sutherland M (1991) Hierarchical partitioning. Am Stat 45:90–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Chhetri BBK, Lund JF, Nielsen ØJ (2012) The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal. Ecol Econ 73:113–121. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen JM, Uphoff NT (1980) Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev 8:213–235. doi:10.1016/0305-750X(80)90011-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vaus D (2002) Surveys in social research, 5th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis RF (1991) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2003) Compendium of agricultural–environmental indicators: 1989–91 to 2000. FAO, Rome, p 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautam AP (2007) Group size, heterogeneity and collective action outcomes: evidence from community forestry in Nepal. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 14:574–583. doi:10.1080/13504500709469756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam AP (2009) Equity and livelihoods in Nepal’s community forestry. Int J Soc For 2:101–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP (2005) Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: some evidence from the Hills of Nepal. Soc Nat Resour 18:153–171. doi:10.1080/08941920590894534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP, Webb EL (2004) A review of forest policies, institutions, and changes in the resource condition in Nepal. Int For Rev 6:136–148. doi:10.1505/ifor.6.2.136.38397

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Nepal (GoN) (2011) National population and housing census. GoN, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Government of Nepal (GoN) (2014) Review of implementation of the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector: achievements and lessons. GoN, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurung A, Bista R, Karki R et al (2013) Community-based forest management and its role in improving forest conditions in Nepal. Small Scale For 12:377–388. doi:10.1007/s11842-012-9217-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN) (1991) National population and housing census. HMGN, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN) (1993) Forest Act 1993. HMGN, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN) (1995) Forest Regulations 1995. HMGN, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN) (2001) National population and housing census. HMGN, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Finnish International Development Agency (FINNIDA) (1988) Master Plan for the Forestry Sector Nepal: main report. HMGN, ADB, FINNIDA, Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen V, Chhetry B, Francis P et al (2006) High value forests, hidden economies and elite capture: evidence from forest user groups in Nepal’s Terai. Ecol Econ 58:93–107. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.05.021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones S (2007) Tigers, trees and Tharu: an analysis of community forestry in the buffer zone of the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Geoforum 38:558–575. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2006.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karanth KK, Nepal SK (2012) Local residents perception of benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal. Environ Manag 49:372–386. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9778-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khadka M (2010) Why does exclusion continue in Nepal’s community forestry? Aid, knowledge and power in forest policy process. Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrücken

    Google Scholar 

  • Khadka M, Karki S, Karky BS et al (2014) Gender equality challenges to the REDD+ initiative in Nepal. Mt Res Dev 34:197–207. doi:10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-13-00081.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kish L (1965) Survey sampling. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lund JF, Baral K, Bhandari NS et al (2014) Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal’s community forests? For Policy Econ 38:119–125. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon F (2000) Trust, networks and norms: the creation of social capital in agricultural economies in Ghana. World Dev 28:663–681. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00146-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mac Nally R (2002) Multiple regression and inference in ecology and conservation biology: further comments on identifying important predictor variables. Biodivers Conserv 11:1397–1401. doi:10.1023/A:1016250716679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahat I (2009) Doing fieldwork in development research: issues in applications of methodologies. In: Mahat I (ed) Gender and rural energy technologies in Nepal: planning and policy perspectives. VDM Publishing, Saarbrücken, p 400

    Google Scholar 

  • Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry? J For Livelihood 3:78–92

    Google Scholar 

  • McDougall CL, Leeuwis C, Bhattarai T et al (2013) Engaging women and the poor: adaptive collaborative governance of community forests in Nepal. Agric Hum Values 30:569–585. doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9434-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta JN, Heinen JT (2001) Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environ Manag 28:165–177. doi:10.1007/s10531-011-9993-3

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta JN, Kellert SR (1998) Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu–Barun Conservation Area. Environ Conserv 25:320–333. doi:10.1017/S037689299800040X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moser CA, Kalton G (1971) Survey methods in social investigation, 2nd edn. Heinemann Educational, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra H (2007) Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15218–15223. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702319104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nagendra H, Karmacharya M, Karna B (2005) Evaluating forest management in Nepal: views across space and time. Ecol Soc 10:24

    Google Scholar 

  • Nepal SK, Spiteri A (2011) Linking livelihoods and conservation: an examination of local residents’ perceived linkages between conservation and livelihood benefits around Nepal’s Chitwan National Park. Environ Manag 47:727–738. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9631-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim AN (1992) Questionnaire design, interviewing, and attitude measurement. Pinter Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Schroeder LD, Wynne SG (1993) Institutional incentives and sustainable development: infrastructure policies in perspective. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandit R, Bevilacqua E (2011a) Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. For Policy Econ 13:345–352. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandit R, Bevilacqua E (2011b) Social heterogeneity and community forestry processes: reflections from forest users of Dhading District, Nepal. Small Scale For 10:97–113. doi:10.1007/s11842-010-9136-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pokharel RK, Tiwari KR, Rayamajhi S (2012) Nepal’s community forestry: need of better governance. In: Okia CA (ed) Global perspectives on sustainable forest management. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia, pp 43–58. http://www.intechopen.com/books/global-perspectives-on-sustainable-forest-management/nepal-scommunity-forestry-need-of-better-governance

    Google Scholar 

  • Poudel M, Thwaites R, Race D, Dahal RG (2014) REDD+ and community forestry: implications for local communities and forest management—a case study from Nepal. Int For Rev 16:39–54. doi:10.1505/146554814811031251

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team (2014) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Core Team, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Sah JP, Heinen JT (2001) Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake area, Nepal. Environ Conserv 28:345–356. doi:10.1017/S0376892901000376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma P, Guha-Khasnobis B, Raj Khanal D (2014) Nepal human development report 2014. GoN (Government of Nepal) and UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), Kathmandu

    Google Scholar 

  • Shivakoti GP, Ostrom E (2002) Improving irrigation governance and management in Nepal. ICS Press, Oakland

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha KK, McManus P (2007) The embeddedness of collective action in Nepalese community forestry. Small Scale For 6:273–290. doi:10.1007/s11842-007-9020-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiteri A, Nepal SK (2008) Distributing conservation incentives in the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Environ Conserv 35:76–86. doi:10.1017/S0376892908004451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapp JR, Lilieholm RJ, Upadhaya S, Johnson T (2015) Evaluating the impacts of forest management policies and community-level institutions in the buffer zone of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. J Sustain For 34:445–464. doi:10.1080/10549811.2015.1025080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stræde S, Treue T (2006) Beyond buffer zone protection: a comparative study of park and buffer zone products’ importance to villagers living inside Royal Chitwan National Park and to villagers living in its buffer zone. J Environ Manag 78:251–267. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sudman S, Sirken MG, Cowan CD (1988) Sampling rare and elusive populations. Science 240:991–996. doi:10.1126/science.240.4855.991

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C (1998) Mixed methodology: combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Thoms CA (2008) Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum 39:1452–1465. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.01.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2013) Chitwan National Park. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/284. Accessed 1 Oct 2014

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation Award EPS-0904155 to Maine EPSCoR Sustainability Solutions Initiative at the University of Maine, McIntire-Stennis Grant Number MEO-M-700510-13, and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Additional support was provided by the Maine Agriculture and Forestry Experimental Station (Publication # 3405) and the Center for Research on Sustainable Forests. We thank, for their assistances, Dr. Ambika Gautam of Kathmandu Forestry College, Abdul Ansari of the World Wildlife Fund-Nepal, Carol Kinsey of SeedTree, Baburam Vishowakarma, Satya-Narayan Chaudhary, Yubaraj Ghatane, and Beeju Poudyal.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jared R. Stapp

    Present address: Environmental Science, Policy, and Management Program, University of California, Berkeley, 326 Mulford Hall, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

  2. Suraj Upadhaya

    Present address: Integrative Conservation in Forestry & Natural Resources Program, University of Georgia, Athens, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, 180 E. Green Street, Athens, GA, 30602, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecology and Environmental Sciences Program, University of Maine, 223 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Jared R. Stapp

  2. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, 249 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Robert J. Lilieholm

  3. School of Forest Resources, University of Maine, 241 Nutting Hall, Orono, ME, 04469, USA

    Jessica Leahy

  4. Department of Forestry, University of Kentucky, Thomas Poe Cooper Building, 730 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40546, USA

    Suraj Upadhaya

Authors
  1. Jared R. Stapp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert J. Lilieholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jessica Leahy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Suraj Upadhaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jared R. Stapp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stapp, J.R., Lilieholm, R.J., Leahy, J. et al. Linking Attitudes, Policy, and Forest Cover Change in Buffer Zone Communities of Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Environmental Management 57, 1292–1303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0682-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-016-0682-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation