IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6603-d1122764.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Implications of Community Forest Income on Social and Environmental Sustainability

Author

Listed:
  • Eve Bohnett

    (Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
    Center for Complex Human-Environment Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

  • Sanju Lamichhane

    (Center for Complex Human-Environment Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

  • Yanjing Tracy Liu

    (Center for Complex Human-Environment Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
    Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

  • Scott Yabiku

    (Department of Sociology and Criminology, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA 16802, USA)

  • Digambar Singh Dahal

    (Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbAII) Project, Climate Change Management Division, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal)

  • Siraj Mammo

    (Department of Forestry, University of Ambo, Ambo P.O. Box 19, Ethiopia)

  • Kossi Fandjinou

    (Department of Plant Sciences, University of Lome, Lome 01BP1515, Togo)

  • Bilal Ahmad

    (Institute of Agriculture, Sciences and Forestry, University of Swat, Charbagh 19120, Pakistan)

  • Li An

    (Center for Complex Human-Environment Systems, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
    Department of Geography, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA)

Abstract

Community forestry is a strategy in which communities are, to some degree, responsible for managing the forests, using a more participatory approach to replace the traditional top-down model. Various forms of policies and governance have been developed to balance goals to ensure the community’s socioeconomic resilience and the landscape’s biological sustainability. The reinvestment of community forest (CF) income back into forest regeneration is not well documented, and there is a lack of research comparing forest income to the costs associated with forest regeneration. This research examines how changes in timber income and forest-regeneration costs affected CF social and ecological viability. We conducted expert elicitation interviews for CFs ( n = 33) under three zones of management in Chitwan, Nepal (Zone 1: buffer zone, Zone 2: forest corridor, and Zone 3: community forest). To examine how CFs differ financially, we asked questions regarding timber income and forest-regeneration expenditures and then posed 22 questions regarding socioeconomic and biological aspects of the CF. Finally, a Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test was performed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences in perceptions between groups, including zone, timber income (high, medium, low), and forest-regeneration expenditures (high, medium, low). The amount of income from timber had a substantial impact on the communities’ biological benefits and financial stability. Lower timber-income areas were thought to be less economically stable, lack the resources to enforce rules and regulations necessary to meet the CF’s socioeconomic or biological goals, and place more significant restrictions on the amount of wood members can harvest from the forest. Communities that spent less money on forest regeneration reported poorer levels of forest regeneration, economic sustainability, and community rights. Our research shows that community-forest user groups in the Chitwan district have a significant income and expenditure gap between their forests’ biological and socioeconomic advantages and resilience.

Suggested Citation

  • Eve Bohnett & Sanju Lamichhane & Yanjing Tracy Liu & Scott Yabiku & Digambar Singh Dahal & Siraj Mammo & Kossi Fandjinou & Bilal Ahmad & Li An, 2023. "The Implications of Community Forest Income on Social and Environmental Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6603-:d:1122764
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6603/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6603/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    2. Chettri, Nakul & Aryal, Kamal & Thapa, Sanjan & Uddin, Kabir & Kandel, Pratikshya & Karki, Seema, 2021. "Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: A case study from the Eastern Himalaya," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Puspa K.C. Bhandari & Prabin Bhusal & Ganesh Paudel & Chiranjibi P. Upadhyaya & Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, 2019. "Importance of Community Forestry Funds for Rural Development in Nepal," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Meilby, Henrik & Smith-Hall, Carsten & Byg, Anja & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rayamajhi, Santosh, 2014. "Are Forest Incomes Sustainable? Firewood and Timber Extraction and Productivity in Community Managed Forests in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 113-124.
    5. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Lund, Jens Friis & Nielsen, Øystein Juul, 2012. "The public finance potential of community forestry in Nepal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 113-121.
    6. Allison Lewin & Karen Mo & Henry Scheyvens & Sara Gabai, 2019. "Forest Certification: More Than a Market-Based Tool, Experiences from the Asia Pacific Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-11, May.
    7. Lund, Jens Friis & Baral, Keshab & Bhandari, Nirmala Singh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Larsen, Helle Overgaard & Nielsen, Øystein Juul & Puri, Lila & Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Treue, Thorsten, 2014. "Who benefits from taxation of forest products in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 119-125.
    8. Paudel, Naya S. & Vedeld, Paul O. & Khatri, Dil B., 2015. "Prospects and challenges of tenure and forest governance reform in the context of REDD+ initiatives in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 1-8.
    9. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu, 2017. "Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household's participation in forest governance and management in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 63-70.
    10. Walelign, Solomon Zena & Jiao, Xi, 2017. "Dynamics of rural livelihoods and environmental reliance: Empirical evidence from Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 199-209.
    11. Li An & Eve Bohnett & Curtis Battle & Jie Dai & Rebecca Lewison & Piotr Jankowski & Neil Carter & Dirgha Ghimire & Maheshwar Dhakal & Jhamak Karki & Alex Zvoleff, 2021. "Sex-Specific Habitat Suitability Modeling for Panthera tigris in Chitwan National Park, Nepal: Broader Conservation Implications," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(24), pages 1-15, December.
    12. Baral, Srijana & Meilby, Henrik & Khanal Chettri, Bir Bahadur & Basnyat, Bijendra & Rayamajhi, Santosh & Awale, Srijana, 2018. "Politics of getting the numbers right: Community forest inventory of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 19-26.
    13. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Johnsen, Fred Hakon & Konoshima, Masashi & Yoshimoto, Atsushi, 2013. "Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 6-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baral, Sony & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Baral, Himlal & Vacik, Harald, 2019. "Investments in different taxonomies of goods: What should Nepal's community forest user groups prioritize?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 24-32.
    2. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    3. Puspa K.C. Bhandari & Prabin Bhusal & Ganesh Paudel & Chiranjibi P. Upadhyaya & Bir Bahadur Khanal Chhetri, 2019. "Importance of Community Forestry Funds for Rural Development in Nepal," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, May.
    4. Lacuna-Richman, Celeste & Devkota, Bishnu P. & Richman, Mark A., 2016. "Users' priorities for good governance in community forestry: Two cases from Nepal's Terai Region," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 69-78.
    5. Rutt, Rebecca Leigh & Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Pokharel, Ridish & Rayamajhi, Santosh & Tiwari, Krishna & Treue, Thorsten, 2015. "The scientific framing of forestry decentralization in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 50-61.
    6. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    7. Sony Baral & Bijendra Basnyat & Kalyan Gauli & Ambika Paudel & Rachana Upadhyaya & Yajna Prasad Timilsina & Harald Vacik, 2019. "Factors Affecting Fuelwood Consumption and CO 2 Emissions: An Example from a Community-Managed Forest of Nepal," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Kayastha, Pankaj Kumar & Shrestha, Gajendra Kumar, 2023. "Conservation by corruption: The hidden yet regulated economy in Nepal's community forest timber sector," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    9. Filippo Caporale & Jimena Mateo-Martín & Muhammad Faizan Usman & Carsten Smith-Hall, 2020. "Plant-Based Sustainable Development—The Expansion and Anatomy of the Medicinal Plant Secondary Processing Sector in Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Kemigisha, Esther & Angelsen, Arild & Babweteera, Fred & Mugisha, Johnny, 2022. "Survival- versus opportunity-driven environmental reliance: Evidence from Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    11. Oli, Bishwa Nath & Treue, Thorsten & Smith-Hall, Carsten, 2016. "The relative importance of community forests, government forests, and private forests for household-level incomes in the Middle Hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 155-163.
    12. Toft, Maja Nastasia Juul & Adeyeye, Yemi & Lund, Jens Friis, 2015. "The use and usefulness of inventory-based management planning to forest management: Evidence from community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 35-49.
    13. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    14. Satyal, Poshendra & Corbera, Esteve & Dawson, Neil & Dhungana, Hari & Maskey, Gyanu, 2020. "Justice-related impacts and social differentiation dynamics in Nepal's REDD+ projects," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    15. Manda, Simon & Mukanda, Nyambe, 2023. "Can REDD+ projects deliver livelihood benefits in private tenure arrangements? Experiences from rural Zambia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    16. Aryal, Kishor & Awasthi, Nripesh & Maraseni, Tek & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Gotame, Pabitra & Bist, Dhan Bahadur, 2023. "Calibrating Nepal's scientific forest management practices in the measure of forest restoration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    17. Walelign,Solomon Zena & Wang Sonne,Soazic Elise & Seshan,Ganesh Kumar, 2022. "Livelihood Impacts of Refugees on Host Communities : Evidence from Ethiopia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10044, The World Bank.
    18. So, Hau Wing & Lafortezza, Raffaele, 2022. "Reviewing the impacts of eco-labelling of forest products on different dimensions of sustainability in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    19. Neil M. Dawson & Michael Mason & Janet A. Fisher & David Mujasi Mwayafu & Hari Dhungana & Heike Schroeder & Mark Zeitoun, 2018. "Norm Entrepreneurs Sidestep REDD+ in Pursuit of Just and Sustainable Forest Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, May.
    20. Wunder, Sven & Angelsen, Arild & Belcher, Brian, 2014. "Forests, Livelihoods, and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(S1), pages 1-11.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6603-:d:1122764. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.