Nepal's community forestry: critical reflection from the governance perspective

References

• Adhikari B, Di Falco S. 2009. Social inequality, local leadership and collective action: an empirical study of forest commons. Eur J Develop Res [Internet]. 21(2):179–194. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. doi:10.1057/ejdr.2008.16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adhikari S, Kingi T, Ganesh S. 2014. Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forestry in Nepal Sunit Adhikari. For Polic Econ [Internet]. 44:1–9. [accessed 2021 Jan 28]. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2014.04.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal B. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry, and gender: an analysis for south Asia and a conceptual framework. World Dev [Internet]. 29(10):1623–1648. [accessed 2020 Sep 10]. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00066-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Chhatre A. 2006. Explaining success on the commons: community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev. 34(1):149–166. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.07.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Chhatre A, Hardin R. 2008. Changing governance of the world's forests. Science. 320(5882):1460–1146. doi:10.1126/science.1155369.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agrawal A, Ribot J. 1999. Accountability in decentralization: a framework with South Asian and West African cases. J Dev Area. 33(4):473–502.
   Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Agrawal A. 2011. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Glob Environ Change [Internet]. 21(3):866–875. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anup K. 2017. Community forestry management and its role in biodiversity conservation in Nepal. In: Lameed GSA, editor. Global exposition of wildlife management [Internet]. [place unknown]: Intech Open; p. 100; [accessed 2022 Feb 20]. doi:10.5772/65926.
   Google Scholar
• Arthur E. 2012. Wealth and antenatal care use: implications for maternal health care utilisation in Ghana. Health Econ Rev. 2(1):1–8. doi:10.1186/2191-1991-2-14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Baral S, Meilby H, Chhetri BBK, Basnyat B. 2018. Politics of getting the numbers right: community forest inventory of Nepal. For Polic Econ [Internet]. 91:19–26. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basnyat B. 2020. Commodifying the community forestry: a case from scientific forestry practices in Western Hills of Nepal. J For Res. 25(2):69–75. doi:10.1080/13416979.2020.1743406.
   Google Scholar
• Basnyat B, Treue T, Pokharel R, Lamsal LN, Rayamajhi S. 2018. Legal-sounding bureaucratic re-centralisation of community forestry in Nepal. For Polic Econ [Internet]. 91:5–18. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhandari PKC, Bhusal P, Chhetri BBK, Upadhyaya CP. 2018. Looking women seriously: what makes differences for women participation in community forestry ? Banko Janakari [Internet]. 28(2):13–22. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. doi:10.3126/banko.v28i2.24184.
   Google Scholar
• Bhandari PKC, Bhusal P, Paudel G, Upadhyaya CP, Chhetri BBK. 2019. Importance of community forestry funds for rural development in Nepal. Resources [Internet]. 8(85):1–14. [accessed 2020 Sep 8]. doi:10.3390/resources8020085.
   Google Scholar
• Bhusal P, Awasthi KR, Kimengsi JN. 2020a. User’s opinion in scientific forest management implementation in Nepal – a case study from Nawalparasi district. Cogent Environ Sci. 6(1). doi:10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhusal P, Karki P, Kimengsi JN. 2020b. Timber distribution dynamics in scientifically managed community forests: learning from Nepal. Forests [Internet]. 11(10):1032. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. doi:10.3390/f11101032.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cedamon E, Nuberg I, Shrestha KK. 2017. How understanding of rural households’ diversity can inform agroforestry and community forestry programs in Nepal. Aust For [Internet]. 80(3):153–160. [accessed 2022 Mar 4]. doi:10.1080/00049158.2017.1339237.
   Google Scholar
• Chaudhary RP, Uprety Y, Rimal SK. 2016. Deforestation in Nepal: causes, consequences, and responses. In: Shroder JF, Sivanpillai R, editors. Biological and environmental hazards, risks, and disasters. [place unknown]: Elsevier; p. 335–372. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394847-2.00020-6.
   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 Pol Econ [Internet]. 30:6–13. [accessed 2020 Sep 8]. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chhetri BBK, Lund JF, Nielsen ØJ. 2012. The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal. Ecol Econ [Internet]. 73:113–121. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CIFOR. 2007. Poverty and environment network (PEN) technical guidelines [Internet]. Bogor. http://www.cifor.org/pen/re-search-tools/the-pen-technical-guidelines.html.
   Google Scholar
• Dahal B, Joshi R, Poudel B, Panta M. 2021. Community forestry governance in federal system of Nepal. J Polic Gov [Internet]. 1(1):30–45. doi:10.33002/jpg010103.
   Google Scholar
• Devkota B, Thwaites R, Race D. 2018. Community forestry, rural livelihoods and poverty reduction in Nepal. In: Thwaites R, Fisher R, Poudel M, editors. Community forestry in Nepal: adapting to a changing world. London and New York: Earthscan; p. 59–81.
   Google Scholar
• Dhakal M, Masuda M. 2009. Local pricing system of forest products and its relations to equitable benefit sharing and livelihood improvement in the lowland community forestry program in Nepal. For Polic Econ [Internet]. 11:221–229. [accessed 2021 Jan 28]. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2009.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhanavandan S. 2016. Application of garret ranking technique: practical approach. Int J Libr Inf Stud [Internet]. 6(3):135–140. [accessed 2020 Aug 25] www.ijlis.org.
   Google Scholar
• Dressler W, Büscher B, Schoon M, Brockington D, Hayes T, Kull CA, McCarthy J, Shrestha K. 2010. From hope to crisis and back again? A critical history of the global CBNRM narrative. Environ Conserv [Internet]. 37(1):5–15. [accessed 2021 Jan 29], https://www.jstor.org/stable/44519994.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan AF, Jones SB, Luloff AE, Finley JC. 1995. The value of using multiple methods: an illustration using survey, focus group, and delphi techniques. Taylor & Francis [Internet]. 8(5):457–465. [accessed 2022 Oct 23]. doi:10.1080/08941929509380936.
   Google Scholar
• Fink G, Victora CG, Harttgen K, Vollmer S, Vidaletti LP, Barros AJD. 2017. Measuring socioeconomic inequalities with predicted absolute incomes rather than wealth quintiles: a comparative assessment using child stunting data from national surveys. Am J Public Health. 107(4):550–555. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2017.303657.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett HE, Woodworth RS. 1969. Statistics in psychology and education, bombay, vakils, feffer and simons pvt, 2nd ed. [place unknown]: Longmans, Green.
   Google Scholar
• Gautam NP, Chhetri BBK, Raut NK, Tigabu M, Raut N, Rashid MHU, Ma X, Wu P. 2020. Do earthquakes change the timber and firewood use pattern of the forest dependent households ? Evidence from rural hills in Nepal. For Polic Econ [Internet]. 119. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102283.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gautam NP, Raut NK, Chhetri BBK, Raut N, Rashid MHU, Ma X, Wu P. 2021. Determinants of poverty, self-reported shocks, and coping strategies: evidence from rural Nepal. Sustainability. 13(4):1790. doi:10.3390/su13041790.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gentle P, Thwaites R. 2018. Community forestry and pro-poor climate change adaptation: a case study from Nepal. In: Thwaites R, Fisher R, Poudel M, editors. Community forestry in Nepal: adapting to a changing world [Internet]. London and New York: Earthscan; p. 127–146. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. doi:10.4324/9781315445168.
   Google Scholar
• Gilmour D. 2016. Forty years of community-based forestry: a review of its extent and effectiveness. [Internet]. Rome. [accessed 2021 Jan 28]. https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20163321859.
   Google Scholar
• GoN. 2014. Community Forest Developmnet Guidlines [Internet]. Kathmandu. http://dofsc.gov.np//public/uploads/files/1593860328samudayik ban bikash magadarshan.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• GoN. 2019. The Forests Act, 2019 (2076) [Internet]. Kathmandu: Law Commission, Government of Nepal. http://www.lawcommission.gov.np/en/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/The-Forest-Act-2019-2076.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Gündüz M, Asce AM, Nielsen Y, Özdemir M. 2013. Quantification of delay factors using the relative importance index method for construction projects in Turkey. J Manag Eng [Internet]. 29(2):133–139. [accessed 2020 Aug 27]. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000129.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatkar KB, Hedaoo NA. 2016. Delay analysis by using relative importance index method in. Int J Civ Eng Concr Struct. 1(3):9–20.
   Google Scholar
• Jalloh MB, Bah AJ, James PB, Sevalie S, Hann K, Shmueli A. 2019. Impact of the free healthcare initiative on wealth-related inequity in the utilization of maternal & child health services in Sierra Leone. BMC Health Serv Res. 19(1):1–15. doi:10.1186/S12913-019-4181-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karki A, Poudyal BH. 2021. Access to community forest benefits: need driven or interest driven? Res Globalization. 3:100041. doi:10.1016/J.RESGLO.2021.100041.
   Google Scholar
• Kimengsi JN, Bhusal P, Aryal A, Vio M, Fernandez BC, Owusu R, Chaudhary A, Nielsen W. 2019. What (de)motivates forest users’ participation in co-management? Evidence from Nepal. Forests [Internet]. 10:512. [accessed 2021 Jan 28]. doi:10.3390/f10060512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lamichhane D, Parajuli R. 2014. How good is the governance status in community forestry? A case study from Midhills in Nepal. Journal of Ecosystems [Internet]. 1–7. [accessed 2020 Sep 10]. doi:10.1155/2014/541374.
   Google Scholar
• Malla YB, Neupane HR, Branney PJ. 2003. Why aren’t poor people benefiting more from community forestry? J For Livelihood. 3(1):78–92.
   Google Scholar
• MoITFE. 2018. Status Paper of Ministry of Industry, Tourism, Forest and Enviornment, Gandaki Province, Nepal [Internet]. Gandaki Province, Pokhara. http://moitfe.gandaki.gov.np/download/स्थित-पत्र-status-paper-२०७५/.
   Google Scholar
• Muhwezi L, Acai J, Otim G. 2014. An assessment of the factors causing delays on building construction projects in Uganda. Int J Constr Eng Manage [Internet]. 3(1):13–23. [accessed 2020 Aug 27]. doi:10.5923/j.ijcem.20140301.02.
   Google Scholar
• Mustalahti I, Lund JF. 2009. Where and how can participatory forest management succeed? Learning from Tanzania, Mozambique, and Laos. Soc Nat Res [Internet]. 23(1):31–44. [accessed 2021 Jan 28]. doi:10.1080/08941920802213433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Negi S, Pham T, Karky B, Garcia C. 2018. Role of community and user attributes in collective action: case study of community-based forest management in Nepal. Forests [Internet]. 9(3):136. [accessed 2022 Feb 17]. doi:10.3390/f9030136.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Odeh AM, Battaineh HT. 2002. Causes of construction delay: traditional contracts. Int J Project Manage [Internet]. 20:67–73. [accessed 2020 Aug 27] www.elsevier.com/locate/ijproman.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha H, Hall A. 2021. Transformation as system innovation: insights from Nepal’s five decades of community forestry development. Innov Dev. 1–23. doi:10.1080/2157930X.2021.1917112.
   Google Scholar
• Ojha H, Pokharel B. 2005. Democratic innovations in community forestry-what can politicians learn? Participation [Internet]. 7(7):22–25. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265071290.
   Google Scholar
• Persha L, Andersson K. 2014. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Glob Environ Change [Internet]. 24:265–276. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokharel BK, Branney P, Nurse M, Malla YB. 2007. Community forestry: conserving forests, sustaining livelihoods and strengthening democracy. J For Livelihood [Internet]. 6(2):8–19. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. https://www.forestaction.org/app/webroot/vendor/tinymce/editor/plugins/filemanager/files/images/stories/pdfs/journal_of_forest_and_livelihood/vol6_2/2_Communityforestry-final.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Puri L, Nuberg I, Ostendorf B, Cedamon E. 2020. Locally perceived social and biophysical factors shaping the effective implementation of community forest management operations in Nepal. Small - Scale For [Internet]. 19:291–317. [accessed 2021 Jan 29]. doi:10.1007/s11842-020-09438-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribot J, Agrawal A, Larson A. 2006. Recentralizing while decentralizing: how national governments reappropriate forest resources. World Dev [Internet]. 34(11):1864–1886. [accessed 2022 Feb 9]. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ribot JC. 2009. Authority over forests: empowerment and subordination in Senegal’s democratic decentralization. Dev Change. 40(1):105–129. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01507.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rijal S, Subedi M, Chhetri R, Joshi R. 2021. Good governance assessment in community forest of Nepal. J For Environ Sci [Internet]. 37(3):251–259. [accessed 2022 Feb 22]. doi:10.7747/JFES.2021.37.3.251.
   Google Scholar
• Sapkota P, Keenan RJ, Ojha HR. 2018. Community institutions, social marginalization and the adaptive capacity: a case study of a community forestry user group in the Nepal Himalayas. For Pol Econ. 92:55–64. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sarkar S. 2017. Incentive and community forest. J Hum Ecol [Internet]. 60(2–3):96–105. [accessed 2022 Feb 22]. doi:10.1080/09709274.2018.1424509.
   Google Scholar
• Sedaghat R. 2011. Constraints in production and marketing of Iran’s pistachio and the policies concerned: An application of the garret ranking technique. Int J Nuts abd Rel Sci [Internet]. 2(1):27–30. [accessed 2020 Sep 1]. http://ijnrs.damghaniau.ac.ir/article_515759.html.
   Google Scholar
• Sunam RK, Mccarthy JF. 2010. Advancing equity in community forestry: recognition of the poor matters. International Forestry Review [Internet]. 12(4):370–382. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. doi:10.1505/ifor.12.4.370.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakali S, Peniston B, Basnet G, Shrestha M. 2018. Conservation and prosperity in new federal Nepal: opportunities and challenges [Internet]. [place unknown]: Australian Aid; [accessed 2023 Jun 24]. http://www.mountainspirit.org.np/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Conservation-and-Prosperity-in-New-Federal-Nepal.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Thangamani S, Muthuselvi S. 2013. A study on women empowerment through self-help groups with special reference to Mettupalayam Taluk in Coimbatore District. J Bus Manag [Internet]. 8(6):17–24. [accessed 2020 Sep 1] www.iosrjournals.orgwww.iosrjournals.org.
   Google Scholar
• UNESCAP. 2006. What is Good Governance? [Internet].:3. http://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/good-governance.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bodegom AJ, Savenije H, de Wit M. 2009. Forests and climate change: adaptation and mitigation [Internet]. Van Bodegom AJ, Savenije H, de Wit M, editors. The Netherlands: Tropenbos International, Wageningen, The Netherlands. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. https://edepot.wur.nl/175460.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hellermann P. 2016. Good governance, corruption, and forest protection: critical insights from environmental anthropology. In: Kopnina H, Shoreman-Ouimet E, editors. Routledge international handbook of environmental anthropology [Internet]. [place unknown]: Abingdon: Routledg; p. 302–314. [accessed 2022 Feb 22]; https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/25698/.
   Google Scholar
• Wagle R, Oli D, Sapkota B, Aryal S, Prajapati SM. 2017. Feminist institutionalist interpretation of forest tenure regimes in Nepal. J For Livelihood [Internet]. 15(1):131–142. [accessed 2021 Jan 30]. doi:10.3126/jfl.v15i1.23095.
   Google Scholar
• Yadav BD, Bigsby H, MacDonald I. 2015. The relative distribution: an alternative approach to evaluate the impact of community level forestry organisations on households. Land use Policy [Internet]. 42:443–449. [accessed 2021 Jan 29] doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaya S, Bishwajit G, Shah V. 2016. Wealth, education and urban–rural inequality and maternal healthcare service usage in Malawi. BMJ Global Health [Internet]. 1(2):85. [accessed 2023 Jun 27]. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2016-000085.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimmer Z. 2018. Poverty, wealth inequality and health among older adults in rural Cambodia. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 66(1):57–71. [accessed 2023 Jun 27]. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.08.032.
   Google Scholar