Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evidence of User Participation in Community Forest Management in the Mid-hills of Nepal: A Case of Rule Making and Implementation

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Small-scale Forestry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

User participation in Community Forestry (CF) regarding forest-related activities from user group formation to implementation of an operational plan is crucial for evaluating the social and biophysical outcomes of a CF program. This study assesses factors responsible for the participation of member households in the planning and implementation process of a CF program in Nepal. Data were collected through a survey of 116 households from six community forest user groups, key informant interviews, and focus group discussions. Simple random sampling was used to collect both qualitative and quantitative information from 10 % of households participating in CF, utilizing a semi-structured questionnaire. Binary logistic regression was used to analyze the factors associated with participation in planning and implementations of CF activities. Six socio-demographic and biophysical explanatory variables were included in the analysis, of which Caste, Sex, Age, and Forest Condition were found statistically significant. The results indicate that if the condition of the community forest is perceived as satisfactory, User Committees receive higher user participation in regards to forest development activities and fund mobilization. The results also suggest activities involving physical work attract younger participants. The existing equal access to forest products does not promote equity. However, promoting women and disadvantaged user participation in CF activities may help achieve higher equitability of CF user groups.

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. CFUGs are self-governing and autonomous entities which are responsible for protection and management of community forests, and given the rights to utilizing the forest resources.

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal B (2009) Gender and forest conservation : the impact of women’s participation in community forest governance. Ecol Econ 68(11):2785–2799. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.04.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Gupta K (2005) Decentralization and participation: the governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s terai. World Dev 33(7):1101–1114. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atmiş E, Daşdemir İ, Lise W, Yıldıran Ö (2007) Factors affecting women’s participation in forestry in Turkey. Ecol Econ 60(4):787–796. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baland J-M, Platteau J-P (1998) Wealth inequality and efficiency in the commons, part II: the regulated case. Oxford Econ Pap 50:1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beach RH, Pattanayak SK, Yang J-C, Murray BC, Abt RC (2005) Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis. For Policy Econ 7(3):261–281. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(03)00065-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya AK, Basnyat B (2003) An analytical study of operational plans and constitution of community forests user groups at Nepal’s western terai. Bank Jankari 13(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Blair HW (1996) Democracy, equity and common property resource management in the Indian subcontinent. Dev Change 27:475–499. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.1996.tb00600.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchy M, Hoverman S (2000) Understanding public participation in forest planning: a review. For Policy Econ 1(1):15–25. doi:10.1016/S1389-9341(00)00006-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnley S, Poe MR (2007) Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now? Annu Rev Anthropol 36(1):301–336. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chhetri BBK, Johnsen FH, Konoshima M, Yoshimoto A (2013) Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: determinants of user participation in forest management. For Policy Econ 30(5):6–13. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coulibaly-Lingani P, Savadogo P, Tigabu M, Oden P-C (2011) Factors influencing people’s participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso. West Africa. For Policy Econ 13(4):292–302. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolisca F, Carter DR, McDaniel JM, Shannon DA, Jolly CM (2006) Factors influencing farmers’ participation in forestry management programs: a case study from Haiti. For Ecol Manag 236(2):324–331. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2006.09.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GON (2009) Community forestry guideline. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Government of Nepal, Kathmandu

  • Gujarati DN, Sangeetha (2007) Basic econometrics. Tata Mcgraw-Hill Education (India) Private Limited, New Delhi

  • Hansen JM (1985) The political economy of group membership. Am Polit Sci Rev 79(1):79–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes CM (2004) Cultural variation, decision making, and local institutions: an examination of fuelwood use in Western Tanzania. Soc Nat Resour 18(1):61–73. doi:10.1080/08941920590881943

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Neter J, Li W (2005) Applied linear statistical models, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill, Irwin

    Google Scholar 

  • Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ (2003) Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry? J For Livelihood 3(1):78–93

    Google Scholar 

  • Mapinduzi AL, Oba G, Weladji RB, Colman JE (2003) Use of indigenous ecological knowledge of the Maasai pastoralists for assessing rangeland biodiversity in Tanzania. Afr J Ecol 41:329–336. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2028.2003.00479.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maryudi A, Devkota RR, Schusser C, Yufanyi C, Salla M, Aurenhammer H, Rotchanaphatharawit R, Krott M (2012) Back to basics: considerations in evaluating the outcomes of community forestry. For Policy Econ 14(1):1–5. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.07.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maskey V, Gebremedhin T, Dalton T (2006) Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal. J For Econ 11(4):261–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Nightingale AJ (2002) Participating or just sitting in ? the dynamics of gender and caste in community forestry. J For livelihood 2(1):17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordström E-M, Eriksson LO, Öhman K (2010) Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning: experience from a case study in northern Sweden. For Policy Econ 12(8):562–574. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2010.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojha H, Pokharel B, McDougall C, Paudel K (2003) Learning to govern: how to improve monitoring system in community forestry in Nepal? J For Livelihood 2(2):23–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson EA (2013) Anthropology and traditional ecological knowledge: a summary of quantitative approaches to traditional knowledge, market participation, and conservation. Cult Agric Food Environ 35:140–151. doi:10.1111/cuag.12017

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parkins JR, Mitchell RE (2005) Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 18:529–540. doi:10.1080/08941920590947977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty J (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 302(5652):1912–1914. doi:10.1126/science.1090847

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roba HG, Oba G (2009) Community participatory landscape classification and biodiversity assessment and monitoring of grazing lands in northern Kenya. J Environ Manage 90(2):673–682. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.12.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp (2009) Stata statistical software: release 11. College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Timsina NP (2002) Political economy of forest resource use and management: an analysis of stakeholders’ interests and actions in Nepal’s community forest management. The University of Reading, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade R (1987) The management of common property resources: collective action as an alternative to privatisation or state regulation. Camb J Econ 11(2):95–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Y (2001) Economics of transaction costs saving forestry. Ecol Econ 36(2):197–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by the DANIDA ComForM project. We would like to thank all members of Community Forests who provided valuable information for this study. Additional thanks to the staff of district forest offices in Tanahun and Parbat for their help during the study area selection. We also would like to extend our appreciation to Shakuntala Sharma, Manisha Shrestha and Yubaraj Bhusal for their assistance in field data collection. We express our sincere gratitude to the members of Harihar CFUG for their valuable input during questionnaire testing. We extend our thanks to MS Jenni Vinson for her support in English correction. Ram P. Sharma, and Krishna P Devkota deserve our sincere thanks for their support in various project stages, including research planning and manuscript preparation. We thank anonymous reviewers and the former editor-in-chief for helpful comments on the earlier version of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological and Health Sciences, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX, USA

    Mukti Ram Subedi

  2. Geospatial Research Laboratory, Department of Physics and Geosciences, Texas A&M University, Kingsville, TX, USA

    Mukti Ram Subedi

  3. Institute of Forestry Tribhuvan University, Pokhara, Nepal

    Yajna P. Timilsina

Authors
  1. Mukti Ram Subedi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yajna P. Timilsina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mukti Ram Subedi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Subedi, M.R., Timilsina, Y.P. Evidence of User Participation in Community Forest Management in the Mid-hills of Nepal: A Case of Rule Making and Implementation. Small-scale Forestry 15, 257–270 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9321-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-015-9321-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation