Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Distribution of benefits based on household participation roles in decentralized conservation within Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project, Nepal

  • Published:
Environment, Development and Sustainability Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Kanchenjunga Conservation Area is located in the remote and sparsely populated mountainous region of Eastern Nepal. It has been locally managed as a decentralized Integrated Conservation and Development Project since 2006, the first of its kind in Asia. Major international donor agencies sponsor programs to empower and strengthen the capacity of local communities to manage their natural resources, while concurrently improving livelihood opportunities. We surveyed 205 randomly selected households throughout the project area to assess the factors that influence household participation roles in management and management groups, and to evaluate how benefits from program involvement were distributed among the community. Overall, the distribution of benefits was unequal: households with higher level participation roles had increased access to financial credit and capacity development trainings. Social variables such as age, level of education among head of households, the highest level education among household adults, and household size predicted participation. The region is economically homogeneous; therefore, economic factors such as remittances, off-farm income and the quantity of landholdings or livestock did not predict household participation roles. Our results demonstrate the importance of targeting and empowering disadvantaged households in decentralized conservation programs, including educating members about the relationship between participation and equitable distribution of benefits.

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 a further in depth analysis of Mother Groups and women’s-development approach (see Gurung 2006; Locher and Muller-Boker 2007).

  2. The Maoist insurgency was a civil war between the communist rebel group and the democratic national government that lasted from 1996 to 2006 and claimed over 13,000 lives. The insurgency has ended with the rebel group integrated into mainstream politics. See Baral and Heinen (2005), Bhattarai et al. (2005), and Thapa (2004).

  3. The Ghunsa Valley contains 40% of the available snow leopard habitat in KCAP and is also an important part of the regional tourist trekking route.

  4. A sample size of 205 within a population of 860 households is sufficient for categorical data analysis with the assumption of 0.05 alpha level and a 0.05 margin of error (Bartlett et al. 2001; Cochran 1977).

  5. Remittance is considered payments to friends and family in a migrant’s home of residence, practiced by over 190 million migrants totaling US $433 billion in 2008, of which US $328 billion went to developing countries (World Bank 2009).

  6. Households in Nepal are generally male dominated. In addition, sons generally reside at their parents’ home with their wives after marriage. Generally, nuclear families are common.

  7. Nepal received US $1.2 billion in remittances which reflect 14.9% of total GDP in 2006 (World Bank 2008).

References

  • Acharya, S., Yoshino, E., Jimba, M., & Wakai, S. (2007). Empowering rural women through a community development approach in Nepal. Community Development Journal, 42(1), 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: Evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 245–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adhikari, B., & Lovett, J. C. (2006). Institutions and collective action: Does heterogeneity matter in community-based resource management? Journal of Development Studies, 42(3), 426–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. (2001). Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: An analysis for South Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development, 29(10), 1623–1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. (2009a). Rule making in community forestry institutions: The difference women make. Ecological Economics, 68(2009), 2296–2308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. (2009b). Gender and forest conservation: The impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecological Economics, 68(2009), 2785–2799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. (2000). Small is beautiful, but is larger better? Forest-management institutions in the Kumaon Himalaya, India. In C. Gibson, M. McKean, & E. Ostrom (Eds.), People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance (pp. 57–85). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. C. (1999). Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development, 27(4), 629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., & Gupta, K. (2005). Decentralization and participation: The governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development, 33(7), 1101–1114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allendorf, T. (2007). Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(7), 2087–2107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajracharya, S., Furley, P., & Newton, A. (2006). Impacts of community-based conservation on local communities in the Annapurna conservation area, Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 15(8), 2765–2786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, N., & Heinen, J. T. (2005). The Maoist people’s war and conservation in Nepal. Politics and the Life Sciences, 24(1), 2–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, N., & Heinen, J. T. (2007). Decentralization and people’s participation in conservation: A comparative study from the western Terai of Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(5), 520–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baral, N., Stern, M., & Heinen, J. (2010). Growth, collapse, and reorganization of the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal: An analysis of institutional resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(3), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, J., Kotrlik, J., & Higgins, C. (2001). Organizational research: Determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Journal of Information Technology, Learning and Performance, 19(1), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(39), 15188–15193.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattarai, K., Conway, D., & Shrestha, N. (2005). Tourism, terrorism and turmoil in Nepal. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(3), 669–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, D., Holland, I., HentcheLand, J., Lanjouw, P., & Herbert, A. (1998). Participation and combined methods in African poverty assessment: Renewing the agenda. London: Department for International Development.

  • Brandon, K., Redford, K., Sanderson, S., Redford, K., & Sanderson, S. (1998). Parks in peril: People, politics, and protected areas and the defense of tropical diversity. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS. (2001). National report. Kathmandu: Central Bureau of Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, W. (1977). Sampling techniques. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, S. (2006). Information and empowerment: The keys to achieving sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 14(6), 629–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dev, O., Yadav, N., Springate-Baginski, O., & Soussan, J. (2003). Impacts of community forestry on livelihoods in the middle hills of Nepal. Journal of Forest Livelihood, 3(1), 67–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, F., & Freeman, H. A. (2004). Rural livelihoods and poverty reduction strategies in four African countries. Journal of Development Studies, 40(4), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurung, G. (2006). Reconciling conservation and livelihood needs in protected areas of Nepal: A case study of Kanchenjunga conservation area. In J. McNeely, T. McCarthy, A. Smith, L. Olsvig-Whittaker, & E. Wikramanayake (Eds.), Conservation biology in Asia (pp. 45–61). Kathmandu, Nepal: The Society for Conservation Biology Asia Section and Resources Himalaya.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinen, J. T., & Mehta, J. N. (1999). Conceptual and legal issues in the designation and management of conservation areas in Nepal. Environmental Conservation, 26(01), 21–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, N. (2004). Economic impacts of livestock depredation by snow leopard uncia uncia in the Kanchenjunga conservation area, Nepal Himalaya. Environmental Conservation, 31(04), 322–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN. (2003). Durban action plan. IUCN World Park Congress.

  • Jumbe, C. B. L., & Angelsen, A. (2007). Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: Empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 661–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollmair, M., Muller-Boker, U., & Soliva, R. (2003). The social context of nature conservation in Nepal. European Bulletin of Himalayan Research, 24, 25–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle, P., Smith, P., & McCool, S. (2004). Access to power or genuine empowerment? An analysis of three community forest groups in Nepal. Human Ecological Review, 11(1), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • LADDER. (2001). Methods manual for fieldwork. LADDER working paper no. 2. Norwich: ODG/EUA.

  • Lise, W. (2000). Factors influencing people’s participation in forest management in India. Ecological Economics, 34(3), 379–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Locher, M., & Muller-Boker, U. (2007). But now men also listen to the women. Women’s-development approach in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project, East Nepal. Asiatische Studien, Etudes Asiatiques LXI(4):1113–1139.

  • Maskey, V., Gebremedhin, T. G., & Dalton, T. J. (2006). Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal. Journal of Forest Economics, 11(4), 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehta, J. N., & Kellert, S. R. (1998). Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: A case study in the Makalu-Barun conservation area. Environmental Conservation, 25(4), 320–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, U., Gurung, G. S., Kollmair, M., & Muller-Boker, U. (2008). “Because the project is helping us to improve our lives, we also help them with conservation”—Integrated conservation and development in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Nepal. In M. Galvin & T. Haller (Eds.) People, protected areas and global change: Participatory conservation in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Europe. Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, University of Bern, Vol. 3 (pp. 363–399). Bern: Geographica Bernensia.

  • Muller-Boker, U., & Kollmair, M. (2000). Livelihood strategies and local perceptions of a new nature conservation project in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development, 20(4), 324–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neupane, H. (2003). Contested impact of community forestry on equity: Some evidences from Nepal. Journal of Forest Livelihood, 2(2), 43–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyaupane, G. P., & Thapa, B. (2004). Evaluation of ecotourism: A comparative assessment in the Annapurna conservation area project, Nepal. Journal of Ecotourism, 3(1), 20–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyaupane, G. P., & Thapa, B. (2006). Perceptions of environmental impacts of tourism: A case study at ACAP, Nepal. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 13(1), 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J. N. (1995). Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J. C. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribot, J. C. (2003). Democratic decentralisation of natural resources: Institutional choice and discretionary power transfers in sub-Saharan Africa. Public Administration and Development, 23(1), 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. G. (1993). The limits to caring: Sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology, 7(1), 20–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheyvens, R. (2003). Tourism for development, empowering communities. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A. (2000). Glamour and gripes of community forestry: Impact on income distribution. Banko Janakari, 10(2), 9–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. J., Muir, R. D. J., Walpole, M. J., Balmford, A., & Leader-Williams, N. (2003). Governance and the loss of biodiversity. Nature, 426(6962), 67–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Terborgh, J., van Shaik, C., Davenport, L., Rao, M., van Shaik, C., Davenport, L., et al. (2002). Making parks work: Strategies for preserving tropical nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thapa, B. (2004). Tourism in Nepal: Shangri-la’s troubled times. Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 15(2), 117–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas-Slayter, B., & Bhatt, N. (1994). Land, livestock, and livelihoods: Changing dynamics of gender, caste, and ethnicity in a Nepalese village. Human Ecology, 22(4), 467–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timsina, N., & Paudel, N. (2003). State versus community: A confusing policy disclosure in Nepal’s forest management. Journal of Forest Livelihood, 2(2), 8–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walpole, M. J., & Goodwin, H. J. (2001). Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environmental Conservation, 28(02), 160–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, M., & Brandon, K. (1992). People and parks: Linking protected area management with local communities. World Bank: Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, M., McShane, T. O., Dublin, H. T., & O’Connor, S. (2004). The future of integrated conservation and development projects: Building on what works. In M. Wells & T. O. McShane (Eds.), Getting biodiversity projects to work: Towards more effective conservation and development (pp. 397–421). New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, S. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, H. (2002). Combining quantitative and qualitative approaches in poverty analysis. World Development, 30, 511–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2008). Migration and remittances factbook. http://econ.worldbank.org. Cited Jan 20, 2009.

  • World Bank. (2009). Remittance market lookout. http://econ.worldbank.org. Cited Jan 20, 2009.

  • WWF. (2007). Sacred Himalayan landscape in Nepal: Understanding the changes in livelihoods assets with locals: A case study from Kanchenjunga conservation area project, Nepal. Kathmandu, Nepal: World Wildlife Fund.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Aerin Jacob for her contributions to the written text. We would also like to thank the staff of the DNPWC, especially Megh Bahadur Pandey. Finally, we thank the people in KCAP who shared both their perspectives and their time with us.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Pete Parker

    Present address: McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management, Eric Friedheim Tourism Institute, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611-8208, USA

    Pete Parker & Brijesh Thapa

Authors
  1. Pete Parker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brijesh Thapa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pete Parker.

Additional information

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of publication of this issue.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Parker, P., Thapa, B. Distribution of benefits based on household participation roles in decentralized conservation within Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project, Nepal. Environ Dev Sustain 13, 879–899 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9296-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-011-9296-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation