Stakeholder perspectives on the effectiveness of governance in red panda conservation programmes in Nepal: a comparative analysis

References

• Abaza H, Bankobeza S, Bendahou N, Buyse-Kalneiva A, Claasen D, Ingraham B, Poulton N, Pratt N, Samnotra V, Zucca C. 2002. Capacity building for sustainable development: an overview of UNEP environmental capacity development initiatives.
   Google Scholar
• Abukari H, Mwalyosi RB. 2020. Local communities’ perceptions about the impact of protected areas on livelihoods and community development. Glob Ecol Conserv. 22:547. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e00909.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson K, Agrawal A. 2011. Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons. Glob Environ Change. 21:866–564. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.03.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson KP, Smith SM, Alston LJ, Duchelle AE, Mwangi E, Larson AM, De Sassi C, Sills EO, Sunderlin WD, Wong GY. 2018. Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: implications for REDD+. Land Use Policy. 72:510–522. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ashbaugh-Skaife H, Collins DW, Lafond R. 2006. The effects of corporate governance on firms’ credit ratings. J Account Econ. 42:203–243. doi:10.1016/j.jacceco.2006.02.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baral S, Vacik H. 2018. What governs tree harvesting in community forestry—regulatory instruments or forest bureaucrats’ discretion? Forests. 9:649. doi:10.3390/f9100649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basnyat B, Treue T, Pokharel RK, Lamsal LN, Rayamajhi S. 2018. Legal-sounding bureaucratic re-centralisation of community forestry in Nepal. For Policy Econ. 91:5–18. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.08.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bebchuk LA, Hamdani A. 2008. The elusive quest for global governance standards. Univ PA Law Rev. 157:1263.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett NJ. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 30:582–592. doi:10.1111/cobi.12681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett NJ, Di Franco A, Calò A, Nethery E, Niccolini F, Milazzo M, Guidetti P. 2019. Local support for conservation is associated with perceptions of good governance, social impacts, and ecological effectiveness. Conserv Lett. 12:e12640. doi:10.1111/conl.12640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan K, Christie P, Clark DA, Cullman G, Curran D, Durbin TJ, Epstein G, et al. 2017. Conservation social science: understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biol Conserv. 205:93–108. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattarai B. 2007. What makes local elites work for the poor? A case of community forestry user group, Nepal. An International Conference on Poverty Reduction and Forests: Tenure, Market, and Policy Reforms. Bangkok (Thailand): Regional Community Forestry Training Center.
   Google Scholar
• Bishwakarma M. 2017. Democratic politics in Nepal: dalit political inequality and representation. Asian J Comp Polit. 2:261–272. doi:10.1177/2057891116660633.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bista D. 2018. Communities in frontline in red panda conservation, Eastern Nepal. Himalayan Nat. 1:11–12.
   Google Scholar
• Bista D, Baxter GS, Murray PJ. 2020. What is driving the increased demand for red panda pelts? Hum Dimens Wildl. 25:324–338. doi:10.1080/10871209.2020.1728788.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bista DB, Paudel PK, Ghimire S, Shrestha S. 2016. National survey of red panda to assess habitat and distribution in Nepal. Final report submitted to WWF/USAID/Hariyo Ban Program.
   Google Scholar
• Bista D, Shrestha S, Sherpa P, Thapa GJ, Kokh M, Lama ST, Khanal K, Thapa A, Jnawali SR. 2017. Distribution and habitat use of red panda in the Chitwan-Annapurna Landscape of Nepal. PLoS ONE. 12(10):12. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0178797.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breakey H, Cadman T, Sampford C. 2017. Governance values and institutional integrity. In: Cadman T, Rowena M, and Sampford C, editors. Governing the climate change regime: institutional integrity and integrity systems. London: Routledge; p. 16–44.
   Google Scholar
• Bullinger C, Haug M. 2012. In and out of the forest: decentralisation and recentralisation of forest governance in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Austrian J South-East Asian Stud. 5:243–262.
   Google Scholar
• Cadman T. 2011. Quality and legitimacy of global governance: case lessons from forestry. London (UK): Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Cadman T, EastWood L, Michaelis F-L-C, Maraseni TN, Pittock J, Sarker T. 2015. The Political economy of sustainable development: policy instruments and market mechanisms. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cadman T, Maraseni T. 2012. The governance of REDD+: an institutional analysis in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. J Environ Plan Manage. 55:617–635. doi:10.1080/09640568.2011.619851.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadman T, Maraseni T. 2013. More equal than others? A comparative analysis of state and non-state perceptions of interest representation and decision-making in REDD+ negotiations. Innov Eur J Soc Sci. 26:214–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadman T, Maraseni T, Breakey H, López-Casero F, Ma HO. 2016. Governance values in the climate change regime: stakeholder perceptions of REDD+ legitimacy at the national level. Forests. 7:212. doi:10.3390/f7100212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cadman T, Maraseni T, Ma HO, Lopez-Casero F. 2017. Five years of REDD+ governance: the use of market mechanisms as a response to anthropogenic climate change. For Policy Econ. 79:8–16. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Colfer CJP. 2011. Marginalized forest peoples’ perceptions of the legitimacy of governance: an exploration. World Dev. 39:2147–2164. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2011.04.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford G, Morrison C. 2021. Community‐led reconstruction, social inclusion and participation in post‐earthquake Nepal. Dev Policy Rev. 39:548–568. doi:10.1111/dpr.12512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels SE, Walker GB. 2001. Working through environmental conflict: the collaborative learning approach.
   Google Scholar
• Davis C 2010. Governance in REDD+. Taking stock of governance issues raised in readiness proposals submitted to the FCPF and the UN-REDD Programme. In: Paper presented at REDD+ Expert Workshop. Chatham House, London: World Resources Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Decker DJ, Forstchen AB, Organ JF, Smith CA, Riley SJ, Jacobson CA, Batcheller GR, Siemer WF. 2014. Impacts management: an approach to fulfilling public trust responsibilities of wildlife agencies. Wildl Soc Bull. 38:2–8. doi:10.1002/wsb.380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Devkota BP. 2020. Social inclusion and deliberation in response to REDD+ in Nepal’s community forestry. For Policy Econ. 111:102048. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102048.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dhungel S. 2018. Provincial comparison of development status in Nepal: an analysis of human development trend for 1996 to 2026. J Manage Dev Stud. 28:53–68. doi:10.3126/jmds.v28i0.24958.
   Google Scholar
• Eagles PFJ, Romagosa F, Buteau-Duitschaever WC, Havitz M, Glover TD, Mccutcheon B. 2013. Good governance in protected areas: an evaluation of stakeholders’ perceptions in British Columbia and Ontario provincial parks. J Sustain Tour. 21:60–79. doi:10.1080/09669582.2012.671331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field A. 2013. Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fraser N. 1990. Rethinking the public sphere: a contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text: 56–80. doi:10.2307/466240.
   Google Scholar
• Gauli K, Rishi P. 2004. Do the marginalised class really participate in community forestry? A case study from Western Terai Region of Nepal. For Trees Livelihoods. 14:137–147. doi:10.1080/14728028.2004.9752488.
   Google Scholar
• Ghimire P, Lamichhane U. 2020. Community based forest management in Nepal: current status, successes and challenges. Grassroots J Nat Res. 3(2):16–29. doi:10.33002/nr2581.6853.03022.
   Google Scholar
• Glatston AR, Leus K. 2020. Global captive masterplan (2020-2025) for the red panda (Ailurus (fulgens) fulgens and Ailurus (fulgens) styani). Global species management plan. Rotterdam: Rotterdam Zoo.
   Google Scholar
• Glatston A, Wei F, Than Z, Sherpa A. 2015. Ailurus fulgens. The IUCN red list of threatened species 2015. Switzerland: IUCN.
   Google Scholar
• GoN. 2018. red panda Conservation action plan for Nepal (2019-2023). Kathmandu (Nepal): Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation and Department of Forests and Soil Conservation.
   Google Scholar
• Gullstrand Edbring E, Lehner M, Mont O. 2016. Exploring consumer attitudes to alternative models of consumption: motivations and barriers. J Clean Prod. 123:5–15. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.107.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gurung A, Karki R, Bista R. 2011. Community-based forest management in Nepal: opportunities and challenges. Res Environ. 1:26–31.
   Google Scholar
• GU & USQ. 2019. Quality of governance standard for forest sector activities and programmes in Nepal at the community forest management level. Australia: Griffith University and University of Southern Queensland.
   Google Scholar
• Hatlebakk M, Ringdal C. 2013. The economic and social basis for state-restructuring in Nepal. CMI Report; p. 1–75.
   Google Scholar
• HMGN. 1993. The forest act. Kathmandu (Nepal): His Majesty’s Government of Nepal (HMGN).
   Google Scholar
• Hu YB, Thapa A, Fan HZ, Ma TX, Wu Q, Ma S, Zhang DL, Wang B, Li M, Yan L, et al. 2020. Genomic evidence for two phylogenetic species and long-term population bottlenecks in Red pandas. Sci Adv. 6. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aax5751.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• IBM CORP. 2019. IBM SPSS statistics for windows. Version 26.0. Armonk (NY): IBM Corp.
   Google Scholar
• IGES. 2016. Quality-of-governance standards for forest management and emissions reduction: developing community forestry and REDD+ governance through a multi-stage, multi-level and multi-stakeholder approach. Japan: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES).
   Google Scholar
• IGES. 2017. Quality of governance standard for forest sector activities and programmes in Nepal at the community forest management level. 2017. Version 1.1. (Pilot standard). https://www.iges.or.jp/en/publication_documents/pub/data/en/6092/Quality+of+governance+standard+book_FINAL_20170828.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Iijima S. 1964. Ecology, economy, and social system in the Nepal Himalayas 1. Dev Econ. 2:91–105. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1049.1964.tb00672.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson CA, Organ JF, Decker DJ, Batcheller GR, Carpenter L. 2010. A conservation institution for the 21st century: implications for state wildlife agencies. J Wildl Manage. 74:203–209. doi:10.2193/2008-485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jalilova G, Vacik H. 2012. Local people’s perceptions of forest biodiversity in the walnut fruit forests of Kyrgyzstan. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage. 8:204–216. doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.696557.
   Google Scholar
• Jnawali S, Leus K, Molur S, Glatston A, Walker S. 2012. red panda (Ailurus fulgens). Population and habitat viability assessment (PHVA) and species conservation Strategy (SCS) workshop 2012. Kathmandu (Nepal): National Trust for Nature Conservation; Coimbatore (India): Conservation Breeding Specialist Group and Zoo Outreach Organization.
   Google Scholar
• Karki S, Marasseni T, Mackey B, Bista D, Lama ST, Gautam AP, Sherpa AP, Koju U, Shrestha A, Cadman T. 2021. Reaching over the gap: a review of trends in and status of red panda research over 193 years (1827–2020). Sci Total Environ. 781:146659. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearney AR, Bradley G, Kaplan R, Kaplan S. 1999. Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific NorthWest. For Sci. 45:62–73.
   Google Scholar
• Khatri D, Maskey G, Adhikari B. 2018. REDD+ and community forestry in Nepal: strengthening or paralysing decentralised governance? J For Livelihood. 16:35–55. doi:10.3126/jfl.v16i1.22881.
   Google Scholar
• Klaver D. 2009. Multi-stakeholder design of forest governance and accountability arrangements in equator province, Democratic Republic of Congo. The Netherlands: International Union for Conservation of Nature, Natural Resources and Wageningen University & Research Centre.
   Google Scholar
• Koenig-Archibugi M. 2006. Introduction: institutional diversity in global governance. In: Koenig-Archibugi M, and Zürn M, editors. New modes of governance in the global system: exploring publicness, delegation and inclusiveness. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; p. 1–30.
   Google Scholar
• Lamichhane D, Parajuli R. 2014. How good is the governance status in community forestry? A case study from midhills in Nepal. J Ecosyst. 2014:1–7. doi:10.1155/2014/541374.
   Google Scholar
• Lammerts Van Beuren EM, Blom EM. 1997. Hierarchical framework for the formulation of sustainable forest management standards. Leiden: The Tropenbos Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Larson A, Pacheco P, Toni F, Vallejo M. 2007. Trends in Latin American forestry decentralisations: legal frameworks, municipal governments and forest dependent groups. Int For Rev. 9:734–747. doi:10.1505/ifor.9.3.734.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin B, Kaewkhunok S. 2021. The role of socio-Culture in the solar power adoption: the inability to reach government policies of marginalized groups. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 144:111035. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liou J. 2004. Community capacity building to strengthen socio-economic development with spatial asset mapping. 3rd FIG Regional Conference. Jakarta (Indonesia).
   Google Scholar
• Lockwood M. 2010. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes. J Environ Manage. 91:754–766. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macura B, Secco L, Pullin AS. 2015. What evidence exists on the impact of governance type on the conservation effectiveness of forest protected areas? Knowledge base and evidence gaps. Environ Evid. 4:1–29. doi:10.1186/s13750-015-0051-6.
   Google Scholar
• Manfredo MJ, Berl RE, Teel TL, Bruskotter JT. 2021. Bringing social values to wildlife conservation decisions. Front Ecol Environ. 19(6):355–362. doi:10.1002/fee.2356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maraseni TN, Bhattarai N, Karky BS, Cadman T, Timalsina N, Bhandari TS, Apan A, Ma HO, Rawat R, Verma N. 2019. An assessment of governance quality for community-based forest management systems in Asia: prioritisation of governance indicators at various scales. Land Use Policy. 81:750–761. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.044.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maraseni TN, Cadman T. 2015. A comparative analysis of global stakeholders’ perceptions of the governance quality of the clean development mechanism (CDM) and reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). Int J Environ Stud. 72:288–304. doi:10.1080/00207233.2014.993569.
   Google Scholar
• Matin N, Islam MS, Mbuvi MTE, Odit BO, Ongugo PO, Syed MA. 2014. Group inequality and environmental sustainability: insights from Bangladesh and Kenyan forest commons. Sustainability. 6:1462–1488. doi:10.3390/su6031462.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcdougall C, Jiggins J, Pandit BH, Thapa Magar Rana SK, Leeuwis C. 2013a. Does adaptive collaborative forest governance affect poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal’s community forests. Soc Nat Res. 26:1235–1251. doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.779344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcdougall CL, Leeuwis C, Bhattarai T, Maharjan MR, Jiggins J. 2013b. Engaging women and the poor: adaptive collaborative governance of community forests in Nepal. Agric Hum Values. 30:569–585. doi:10.1007/s10460-013-9434-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mekuria W, Haileslassie A, Tengberg A, Zazu C. 2021. Stakeholders interest and influence and their interactions in managing natural resources in Lake Hawassa catchment, Ethiopia. Ecosyst People. 17:87–107. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1894238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry of Forests and Environment. 2019. Forest act 2019. G.O. N., editor. Kathmandu (Nepal): Government of Nepal.
   Google Scholar
• Mohanty B, Sahu G. 2012. An empirical study on elements of forest governance: a study of JFM implementation models in Odisha. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 37:314–323. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.297.
   Google Scholar
• Mustalahti I, Agrawal A. 2020. Research trends: responsibilization in natural resource governance. For Policy Econ. 121:102308. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102308.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nansikombi H, Fischer R, Kabwe G, Günter S. 2020. Exploring patterns of forest governance quality: insights from forest frontier communities in Zambia’s Miombo ecoregion. Land Use Policy. 99:104866. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104866.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nulty DD. 2008. The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess Eval High Educ. 33:301–314. doi:10.1080/02602930701293231.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pandit R, Bevilacqua E. 2011. Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal. For Policy Econ. 13:345–352. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.03.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paudel PK. 2018. Conserving red panda in the human dominated landscape in Eastern Himalaya: an assessment of institutional framework. Kathmandu (Nepal): Department of Forest and Soil Conservation and red panda Network.
   Google Scholar
• Persha L, Andersson K. 2014. Elite capture risk and mitigation in decentralized forest governance regimes. Glob Environ Change. 24:265–276. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piabuo SM, Foundjem-Tita D, Minang PA. 2018. Community forest governance in Cameroon. Ecol Soc. 23. doi:10.5751/ES-10330-230334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pokharel BK, Niraula DR . 2004. Community forestry governance in Nepal: Achievements, challenges and options for the future. In Twenty-five years of community forestry: Proceedings of the fourth national workshop on Community Forestry, editors K. R. Kanel, P. Mathema, B. R. Kandel, D. R. Niraula, A. R. Sharma, and M. Gautam. Kathmandu, Nepal: Community Forestry Division, Department of Forests; p. 298–316
   Google Scholar
• Pokharel RK, Tiwari KR. 2013. Good governance assessment in Nepal’s community forestry. J Sustain For. 32:549–564. doi:10.1080/10549811.2013.779902.
   Google Scholar
• Poudyal BH, Maraseni T, Cockfield G. 2020a. Scientific forest management practice in Nepal: critical reflections from stakeholders’ perspectives. Forests. 11:27. doi:10.3390/f11010027.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poudyal BH, Maraseni T, Cockfield G, Bhattarai B. 2020b. Recognition of historical contribution of indigenous peoples and local communities through benefit sharing plans (BSPs) in REDD+. Environ Sci Policy. 106:111–114. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2020.01.022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pujo P, Sofhani T, Gunawan B, Syamsudin TS. 2018. Community capacity building in social forestry development: a review. J Reg City Plan. 29:113–126. doi:10.5614/jrcp.2018.29.2.3.
   Web of Science ®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. 19:291–317.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rahman MH, Miah MD. 2017. Are protected forests of Bangladesh prepared for the implementation of REDD+? A Forest governance analysis from Rema-Kalenga wildlife sanctuary. Environments. 4:43. doi:10.3390/environments4020043.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Red Panda Network. 2021. Expanding conservation into Western Nepal [Online]. Kathmandu (Nepal): red panda Network. [accessed 2021 Mar 23].
   Google Scholar
• Ribeiro S, Selaya NG, Perz S, Brown F, Schmidt F, Silva R, Lima F. 2020. Aligning conservation and development goals with rural community priorities: capacity building for forest health monitoring in an extractive reserve in Brazil. Ecol Soc. 25. doi:10.5751/ES-11665-250305.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen L 2020. Who benefits? Gender equity and social inclusion among community forest user groups in Nepal: who benefits?
   Google Scholar
• Saguye TS. 2017. Empirical analysis of the reality of gender inclusiveness of participatory forest management approach: the case of Chilimo-Gaji Forest, West Shewa Zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. Int J Sci Technol Manage. 5:74–86. doi:10.11648/j.ijsts.20170504.14.
   Google Scholar
• Samndong RA, Kjosavik DJ. 2017. Gendered forests exploring gender dimensions in forest governance and REDD+ in équateur province, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Ecol Soc. 22. doi:10.5751/ES-09753-220434.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sapkota LM, Jihadah L, Sato M, Greijmans M, Wiset K, Aektasaeng N, Daisai A, Gritten D. 2021. Translating global commitments into action for successful forest landscape restoration: lessons from Ing watershed in northern Thailand. Land Use Policy. 104:104063. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104063.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satyal P, Corbera E, Dawson N, Dhungana H, Maskey G. 2019. Representation and participation in formulating Nepal’s REDD+ approach. Clim Policy. 19:S8–S22. doi:10.1080/14693062.2018.1473752.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Secco L, Da Re R, Pettenella DM, Gatto P. 2014. Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: a set of indicators. For Policy Econ. 49:57–71. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackleton RT, Richardson DM, Shackleton CM, Bennett B, Crowley SL, Dehnen-Schmutz K, Estévez RA, Fischer A, Kueffer C, Kull CA, et al. 2019. Explaining people’s perceptions of invasive alien species: a conceptual framework. J Environ Manage. 229:10–26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.045.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherpa AP, Lama ST, Shrestha S, Williams B, Bista D. 2022. red pandas in Nepal: a community-based approach to landscape-level conservation. red panda. Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons A, Reynolds RC, Swinburn B. 2011. Defining community capacity building: is it possible? Prev Med. 52:193–199. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.02.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stevance A-S, Bridgewater P, Louafi S, King N, Beard TD, Jr, Van Jaarsveld AS, Ofir Z, Kohsaka R, Jenderedijan K, Rosales Benites M. 2020. The 2019 review of IPBES and future priorities: reaching beyond assessment to enhance policy impact. Ecosyst People. 16:70–77. doi:10.1080/26395916.2019.1702590.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thapa A, Hu YB, Aryal PC, Singh PB, Shah KB, Wei FW. 2020a. The endangered red panda in Himalayas: potential distribution and ecological habitat associates. Glob Ecol Conserv. 21:e00890. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00890.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thapa A, Hu YB, Wei FW. 2018. The endangered red panda (Ailurus fulgens): ecology and conservation approaches across the entire range. Biol Conserv. 220:112–121. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.02.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thapa S, Prasai R, Pahadi R. 2020b. Does gender-based leadership affect good governance in community forest management? A case study from Bhaktapur district. Banko Janakari. 30:59–70. doi:10.3126/banko.v30i2.33479.
   Google Scholar
• Thoms CA. 2008. Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local livelihoods: a critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum. 39:1452–1465. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.01.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torres-Rojo JM, Moreno-Sánchez R, Amador-Callejas J. 2019. Effect of capacity building in alleviating poverty and improving forest conservation in the communal forests of Mexico. World Dev. 121:108–122. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.04.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uprety DR, Gurung A, Bista R, Karki R, Bhandari K. 2012. Community forestry in Nepal: a scenario of exclusiveness and its implications. Front Sci. 2:41–46. doi:10.5923/j.fs.20120203.05.
   Google Scholar
• Van Bodegom A, Wigboldus S, Blundell A, Harwell E, Savenije H. 2012. Strengthening effective forest governance monitoring practice: an approach for integrating forest governance into national forest-related monitoring systems. FAO.
   Google Scholar
• Vanvoorhis CW, Morgan BL. 2007. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 3:43–50. doi:10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043.
   Google Scholar
• Von Braun J, Gatzweiler FW. 2014. Marginality—an overview and implications for policy. In: Joachim VB Franz WG, editors. Marginality. New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wagle R, Pillay S, Wright W. 2020. The history of Nepalese forest Management and the roles of women. In: Feminist institutionalism and gendered bureaucracies. Singapore: Springer; p. 67–110.
   Google Scholar
• Wei F, Thapa A, Hu Y, Zhang Z. 2022. red panda ecology. In: Glatson A, editor. red panda: biology and conservation of the first panda. UK: Academic Press; p. 329–351.
   Google Scholar
• Whitman J. 2005. Limits of global governance. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Williams BH, Dahal BR, Subedi TR. 2011. Chapter 22 - Project Punde Kundo: community-based monitoring of a red panda population in Eastern Nepal. In: Glatston AR, editor. red panda. Oxford: William Andrew Publishing; p. 393–408.
   Google Scholar