Local Institutions and Forest Products Extraction: Evidence from Forest Management in Nepal
AbstractThis study examines the contribution of forest products from community forests to household income, with particular emphasis on institutional differences in management and benefit distribution. Two community-managed forests (with formal and informal institutions) were studied in the Pyuthan district of Nepal. Findings show that the contribution of forest products to household income is higher in the case of forest management without a formal institution than in the case of management under a formal institution. The analysis of household level benefits indicates that poorer households, who are more dependent on forest products, bear the burden of conservation. This is mainly a result of the access and conservation rules imposed by formal forest user groups.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by The South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics in its series Working papers with number 65.
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics PO Box: 8975, EPC: 1056 Kathmandu, Nepal
Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs); Common Property Resource (CPR); Forest User Group (FUG); Contribution;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Baland, Jean-Marie & Platteau, Jean-Philippe, 2000. "Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities?," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198290612.
- E. Somanathan & R. Prabhakar & B.S. Mehta, 2002. "Collective action for forest conservation: Does heterogeneity matter?," Indian Statistical Institute, Planning Unit, New Delhi Discussion Papers 02-01, Indian Statistical Institute, New Delhi, India.
- Holden, Stein T. & Shiferaw, Bekele & Wik, Mette, 1998. "Poverty, market imperfections and time preferences: of relevance for environmental policy?," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(01), pages 105-130, February.
- Salvatore Di Falco & Charles Perrings, 2003. "Crop Genetic Diversity, Productivity and Stability of Agroecosystems. A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 50(2), pages 207-216, 05.
- Alexander Karaivanov, 2009. "Heterogeneity, returns to scale, and collective action," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 42(2), pages 771-807, May.
- Dayton-Johnson, Jeff, 2000. "Determinants of collective action on the local commons: a model with evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 181-208, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Anuradhak).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.