Abstract
The attributes of social ecological systems affect the management of commons. Strengthening and enhancing social capital and the enforcement of rules and sanctions aid in the collective action of communities in forest fire management. Using a set of variables drawn from previous studies on the management of commons, we conducted a study across 20 community forest user groups in Central Siwalik, Nepal, by dividing the groups into two categories based on the type and level of their forest fire management response. Our study shows that the collective action in forest fire management is consistent with the collective actions in other community development activities. However, the effectiveness of collective action is primarily dependent on the complex interaction of various variables. We found that strong social capital, strong enforcement of rules and sanctions, and users’ participation in crafting the rules were the major variables that strengthen collective action in forest fire management. Conversely, users’ dependency on a daily wage and a lack of transparency were the variables that weaken collective action. In fire-prone forests such as the Siwalik, our results indicate that strengthening social capital and forming and enforcing forest fire management rules are important variables that encourage people to engage in collective action in fire management.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Woody plants having breast height diameters ≥30 cm.
Woody plants having breast height diameters between 10 and 30 cm.
Woody plants having height >1 m but breast height diameters <10 cm.
Woody plants with heights between 30 cm and 1 m.
References
Adhikari B, Lovett JC (2006) Transaction costs and community based resource management in Nepal. J Environ Manag 78(2006):5–15
Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development. 29(10)
Agrawal A (2002) Common resources and institutional sustainability. In: Ostrom E, Dietz T et al. (eds) The drama of the commons. National Research Council, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change. National Academy Press, Washington DC. pp 41–85
Agrawal A (2003) Sustainable governance of common pool resources: context, methods, and politics. Annu Rev Anthropol 32:243–262
Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114
Agrawal A, Yadama G, Andrade R, Bhattacharya A (2006) Decentralization and environmental conservation: gender effects from participation in joint forest management. CAPRi Working Paper No. 53. CGIAR Systemwide Program on Collective Action and Property Rights (CAPRi), Washington, DC, USA
Baland JM, Platteau JP (1996) Halting degradation of natural resources: is there a role for rural communities. Clarencon Press, Oxford
Bawa KS, Kress WJ, Nadkarni NM, Lele S (2004) Beyond paradise-meeting the challenges in tropical biology in the 21st century. Biotropica 36(4):437–446
Chhatre A, Agrawal A (2008) Forest commons and local enforcement. PNAS 105(36):13286–13291
Dahal GR, Chapagain A (2008) Community forestry in Nepal: decentralized forest governance In: Pierce CC, Dahal GR, Capistrano (eds) Lessons from forest decentralization: “money, justice and the quest for good governance in Asia-Pacific” CIFOR, 2008 Published first by Earthscan in UK and USA (2008), pp 65–79
DDC/Chitwan (2005) District profile. District Development Committee (2005), Makawanpur, Nepal
DDC/Makwanpur (2010) District profile. District Development Committee, Makawanpur, Nepal
DFO/Chitwan (2011) Community forest user group monitoring and evaluation report. District Forest Office, Chitwan, Nepal
DFO/Makwanpur (2011) Annual report. District Forest Office, Makwanpur, Nepal
DFRS (1999) Forest resources of Nepal. Department of Forest Research and Survey, Nepal. Publication No. 74
Dudwick N, Kuehnast K, Jones VN, Woolcock M (2006) Analyzing social capital in context: a guide to using qualitative methods and data. World Bank Institute, Washington DC
FAO (2009) Nepal forestry outlook study. Asia-Pacific forestry sector outlook study. FAO Regional office for Asia the Pacific, Bangkok, Working Paper No. APFSOS II/WP/2009/05
Gautam M (2004) Gender and equity issues in community forestry: context and concerns. In: Kanel KR et al (eds) Twenty- five years of community forestry. Proceeding of fourth national workshop on community forestry, Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu, Nepal
Gautam AP, Shivakoti GP (2005) Conditions for successful local collective action in forestry: some evidence from the hills of Nepal. Soc Nat Res 18:153–171
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(2):136–148
Ghate R, Nagendra H (2005) Role of monitoring in institutional performance: forest management in Maharashtra, India. Conserv Soc 3(2):509–532
Ghate R, Mehra D, Nagendra H (2009) Local institutions as mediators of the impact of markets on non-timber forest product extraction in central India. Environ Conserv 36(1):51–61
Gibson CC, Williams JT, Ostrom E (2005) Local enforcement and better forests. World Dev 33(2):273–284
GoN (2010) Hamroban (Annual report of fiscal year 2065/66 B.S. published in Nepali). Department of Forest, Government of Nepal
Gurung H (2001) Highlanders on the move: the migration trend in Nepal. In: Heide SV, Hoffman T (eds) Aspects of migration and mobility in Nepal. Ratna Pustak Bhandar, Kathmandu, pp 11–42
IFFN (2002) Fire situation in Nepal. International Forest Fire News. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, No. 26. pp 84–86
IFFN (2006a) Participatory forest fire management: an approach. Int For Fire News 34:35–45
IFFN (2006b) Forest fire in the Terai, Nepal: causes and community management interventions. Int For Fire News 34:46–54
ITTO (2009) Outline of the “development of a policy, a strategy and building capacities in local, national and transboundary forest fire management for Nepal. International Tropical Timber Organization (PP-A/35-140A)
IUCN & WWF (2000) Global Review of Forest Fires. The World Conservation Union & World Wide Fund for Nature
Joshi NN, Jali NM, Hamid AH (1997) Organizational structure, performance and participation: forest user groups in the Nepal hills. In: Shivakoti et al (ed) People and participation in sustainable development: understanding the dynamics of Natural Resources Systems. Winrock International, Bloomington, Indiana and Rampur, Chitwan
Laerhoven FV, Ostrom E (2007) Traditions and trends in the study of the commons. Int J Commons 1(1):3–28
Mundry R, Fischer J (1998) Use of statistical programs for nonparametric tests of small samples often leads to incorrect P-values: examples from Animal Behaviour. Anim Behav 56:256–259
Nagendra H (2007) Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. PNAS 25(104) 39 15218–15223
Nagendra H, Karmacharya M, Karna B (2005) Evaluating forest management in Nepal: views across space and time. Ecol Soc 10(1):24
Ojha HR (2008) Techno-bureaucratic doxa and deliberative governance: the case of community forestry policy and practice in Nepal. Policy Soc 25(2):131–175
Ojha H, Persha L, Chhatre A (2009) Community forestry in Nepal: a policy innovation for local livelihoods. IFPRI International Food and Policy Research Institute. Discussion Paper 00913
Oliver PE (1993) Formal models of collective action. Annu Rev Sociol 19:271–300
Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Orwa C, Mutua A, Kindt R, Jamnadass R, Simons A (2009) Agroforestry database:a tree reference and selection guide version 4.0. http://www.worldagroforestry.org/treedb2/AFTPDFS/Shorea_robusta.pdf
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, New York
Ostrom E (1999) Self-governance and forest resources. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. CIFOR Occasional Paper 20
Ostrom E (2000) Reformulating the commons. Swiss Polit Sci Rev 6(1):29–52
Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422
Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees and people from the air, on the ground and in the laboratory. PNAS 103(51):19224–19231
Pagdee A, Kim YS, Daugherty PJ (2006) What makes community forest management successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the world. Soc Nat Res 19(1):33–52
Poteete A, Ostrom E (2004) In pursuit of comparable concepts and data about collective action. Agric Syst 82(2004):215–232
Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management. Science 302(5252):1912–1914
Shrestha UB, Shrestha BB, Shrestha S (2010) Biodiversity conservation in community forests of Nepal: rhetoric and reality. Int J Biodivers Conserv 2(5):98–104
Shyamsundar P, Ghate R (2011) Rights, responsibilities and resources: examining community forestry in south Asia. SANDEE working Papers, SANDEE, Kathmandu, Nepal. ISSN 1893-1891, WP 59-11
Taylor C, Hudson MC (1972) The world handbook of political and social indicators (2nd ed.). Yale University Press, New Haven, CT cited in: Montalvo JG, Reynal-QuerolM (2004) Ethnic diversity and economic development. Journal of Development Economics 76 (2005) 293–323
Varughese G, Ostrom E (2001) The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Dev 29(5):747–765
Wade R (1987) The management of common property resources: collective action as an alternative to privatisation or state regulation. Camb J Econ 11:95–106
Wollebaek D, Selle P (2003) Participation and social capital formation: Norway in a comparative perspective. Scandinavian Political Studies 26(1):67–91
World Bank (2011) What is social capital. http://go.worldbank.org/K4LUMW43B0
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway, for financially supporting the field work conducted for this research. Similarly, we are indebted to the Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand, for creating a conducive environment for the entire process of this study. We would like to acknowledge the active support from the District Forest Office staff, forest users and field assistants in the study. Finally, we appreciate the invaluable comments from two anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sapkota, L.M., Shrestha, R.P., Jourdain, D. et al. Factors Affecting Collective Action for Forest Fire Management: A Comparative Study of Community Forest User Groups in Central Siwalik, Nepal. Environmental Management 55, 171–186 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0404-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0404-x