111
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Socioeconomics, Planning, and Management

Scientific forest management practices in Nepal: perceptions of forest users and the impact on their livelihoods

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, &
Pages 159-168 | Received 14 Oct 2022, Accepted 22 Oct 2023, Published online: 08 Nov 2023

References

  • Acharya K. 2002. Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal. Int For Rev. 4(2):149–156. doi: 10.1505/IFOR.4.2.149.17447.
  • Adhikari B, Di Falco S, Lovett JC. 2004. Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecol Econ. 48(2):245–257. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.008.
  • Adhikari S, Harada K, Dahal NK, Kandel S. 2021. Earthquake impacts on the livelihoods of community forest users in Sindhupalchok district, Nepal, and their perceptions towards forest conservation. Conservation. 1(4):327–341. doi: 10.3390/conservation1040025.
  • Aryal K, Laudari HK, Maraseni T, Pathak BR. 2022. Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal’s Scientific forest management. For Policy Econ. 141(5):102768. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102768.
  • Awasthi N, Aryal K, Bahadur Khanal Chhetri B, Bhandari SK, Khanal Y, Gotame P, Baral K. 2020. Reflecting on species diversity and regeneration dynamics of scientific forest management practices in Nepal. For Ecol Manage. 474(June):118378. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2020.118378.
  • Bahadur B, Chhetri K, Friis J, Juul Ø. 2012. The public fi nance potential of community forestry in Nepal. Ecol Econ. 73:113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.023
  • Bampton JFR, Ebregt A, Banjade MR. 2007. Collaborative forest management in Nepal ’ s Terai: policy, practice and contestation collaborative forest management in Nepal ’ s Terai: policy, practice and contestation. J For Livelihood. 6(2):30–43.
  • 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.
  • Basnyat B. 2021. Pitfalls of Scientific forestry practices in the community forestry of Nepal. For J Inst For Nepal. 18(1):30–40. doi: 10.3126/forestry.v18i01.41749.
  • Basnyat B, Treue T, Pokharel RK. 2018. Silvicultural madness: a case from the “Scientific forestry” initiative in the community forests of Nepal. Banko Janakari. 27(3):54–64. doi: 10.3126/banko.v27i3.20542.
  • Baynes J, Herbohn J, Dressler W. 2016. Power relationships: their effect on the governance of community forestry in the Philippines. Land Use Policy. 54(7):169–176. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.01.008.
  • Bhandari PKC, Bhusal P, Paudel G, Upadhyaya CP, Chhetri BBK. 2019. Importance of community forestry funds for rural development in Nepal. Resources. 8(2):9–17. doi: 10.3390/resources8020085.
  • Bhattarai B. 2016. History of forestry and community forest in Nepal. Imp J Interdiscip Res. 2(11):424–439.
  • Bhusal P, Awasthi KR, Kimengsi JN, Li F. 2020. User’s opinion in scientific forest management implementation in Nepal – a case study from Nawalparasi district. Cogent Environ Sci. 6(1):1778987. doi: 10.1080/23311843.2020.1778987.
  • Campbell S. 1996. Green cities, growing cities, just cities?: urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. J Am Plan Assoc. 62(3):296–312. doi: 10.1080/01944369608975696.
  • Dahal NK, Harada K, Adhikari S, Sapkota RP, Kandel S. 2022. Impact of wildlife on food crops and approaches to reducing human wildlife conflict in the protected landscapes of Eastern Nepal. Hum Dimens Wildl. 27(3):273–289. doi: 10.1080/10871209.2021.1926601.
  • Dhruba Bijaya GC, Cheng S, Xu Z, Bhandari J, Wang L, Liu X. 2016. Community forestry and livelihood in Nepal: a review. J Anim Plant Sci. 26(1):1–12.
  • Harada K. 2003. Attitudes of local people towards conservation and gunung halimun national park in west Java, Indonesia. J For Res. 8(4):271–282. doi: 10.1007/s10310-003-0037-z.
  • Islam KK, Saifullah M, Hyakumura K. 2021. Does traditional agroforestry a sustainable production system in Bangladesh? An analysis of socioeconomic and ecological perspectives. Conservation. 1(1):21–35. doi: 10.3390/conservation1010003.
  • Joshi O, Parajuli R, Kharel G, Poudyal NC, Taylor E, Dwivedi P. 2018. Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal. PloS One. 13(9):1–15. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203106.
  • Katila P, McDermott C, Larson A, Aggarwal S, Giessen L. 2020. Forest tenure and the sustainable development goals – a critical view. For Policy Econ. 120(August):102294. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102294.
  • Khanal Y, Adhikari S. 2018. Regeneration promotion and income generation through scientific forest management in community forestry: a case study from Rupandehi district, Nepal. Banko Janakari. 27(3):45–53. doi: 10.3126/banko.v27i3.20541.
  • Laudari HK, Aryal K, Maraseni T. 2020. A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal. Land Use Policy. 91:91. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104338.
  • Maharjan KL. 2005. Community participation in forest resource management in Nepal. J Mt Sci. 2(1):32–41. doi: 10.1007/s11629-005-0032-2.
  • MSFP. 2016. Scientific forest management initiatives in Nepal: MSFP experiences and lessons learnt. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.15707.92960.
  • Munasinghe M 2007. Sustainable development triangle. In: United Nations Conf Sustain Dev - Rio 2007. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Sustainable_development_triangle
  • Negi S, Pham TT, Karky B, Garcia C. 2018. Role of community and user attributes in collective action: case study of community-based forest management in Nepal. Forests. 9(3):136. doi: 10.3390/f9030136.
  • Ojha HR, Cameron J, Kumar C. 2009. Deliberation or symbolic violence? The governance of community forestry in Nepal. For Policy Econ. 11(5–6):365–374. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.11.003.
  • Pandit BH, Shrestha KK, Bhattarai SS. 2014. Sustainable local livelihoods through enhancing agroforestry systems in Nepal. J For Livelihood. 12(1):47–63.
  • Pathak B, Yi X, Bohara R. 2017. Community based forestry in Nepal: status, issues and lessons learned. Int J Sci. 3(3):119–129. doi: 10.18483/ijsci.1232.
  • Paudel G, Bhusal P, Kimengsi JN. 2021. Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific forest management in Nepal. For Policy Econ. 126(10):102426. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102426.
  • Pokharel BK, Nurse M. 2004. Forests and people’s livelihood: benefiting the poor from community forestry. J For Livelihood. 4(1):19–29.
  • Poudyal BH, Maraseni T, Cockfield G. 2020. Scientific forest management practice in Nepal: critical reflections from stakeholders’ perspectives. Forests. 11(1):27. doi: 10.3390/f11010027.
  • Poudyal BH, Maraseni TN, Cockfield G. 2019. Implications of selective harvesting of natural forests for forest product recovery and forest carbon emissions: cases from Tarai Nepal and Queensland Australia. Forests. 10(8):693. doi: 10.3390/f10080693.
  • Ranjit Y. 2019. History of forest management in Nepal: an analysis of political and economic perspective. Econ J Nepal. 42(3):12–28. doi: 10.3126/ejon.v42i3-4.36030.
  • Schroeder SA, Landon AC, Fulton DC, Mcinenly LE. 2021. Social identity, values, and trust in government: how stakeholder group, ideology, and wildlife value orientations relate to trust in a state agency for wildlife management. Biol Conserv. 261:261. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109285.
  • Smith AC, Hurni K, Fox J, Hoek JVD. 2023. Community forest management led to rapid local forest gain in Nepal: a 29 year mixed methods retrospective case study. Land Use Policy. 126(3):106526. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106526.
  • Thing SJ, Poudel BS. 2017. Buffer zone community forestry in Nepal: examining tenure and management outcomes. J For Livelihood. 15(1):57–70. doi: 10.3126/jfl.v15i1.23096.
  • Thoms CA. 2008. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum. 39(3):1452–1465. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.01.006.
  • Timsina NP. 2003. Promoting social justice and conserving Montane forest environments: a case study of Nepal ’ s community forestry programme. Geogr J. 169(3):236–242. doi: 10.1111/1475-4959.00087.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.