IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i11p4471-d1401439.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)’ Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Nabin Dhungana

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Studies and Oceanography, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan
    Natural Resources Conservation Nepal, Bharatpur 44200, Bagmati Province, Nepal)

  • Chun-Hung Lee

    (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, College of Environmental Studies and Oceanography, National Dong Hwa University, Hualien 97401, Taiwan)

  • Chiranjeewee Khadka

    (Global Change Research Institute CAS, Belidla 986/4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic)

  • Samjhana Adhikari

    (Ministry of Forests and Environment, Hetauda 44107, Bagmati Province, Nepal)

  • Nabaraj Pudasaini

    (Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal)

  • Pramod Ghimire

    (Faculty of Forestry, Agriculture and Forestry University, Hetauda 44107, Bagmati Province, Nepal)

Abstract

The community forests (CF) in Nepal, facilitated by Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), is widely recognized as an effective model of community-based forest management. Despite this recognition, there is a notable lack of comprehensive studies assessing the performance of CFUGs in sustaining community forests. Addressing this gap, this study examined twenty-two indicators across five performance criteria, such as user group management, forest management, financial management, livelihood management, and collaboration and networking management, within four CFUGs in central Nepal. Data were collected through household surveys ( n = 275) and focus group discussions ( n = 4), and indicators of performance criteria were assessed using a Likert scale. Reliability was measured using the coefficient of Cronbach’s alpha. ANOVA was employed to compare mean performance criteria across the four CFUGs, providing an evaluative perspective on overall CFUG performance. The findings underscored collaboration and networking management as high performers, showing an index value of 0.71, while user group management exhibited moderate performance with an index value of 0.56, alongside other moderately performing criteria. Noteworthy disparities were evident across the four performance criteria ( p < 0.01), with the exception of collaboration and network management. Approximately 55% of the indicators were rated low to moderate, revealing CFUGs’ deficiencies in regular functions, limited uptake of adaptive and market-oriented management practices, minimal contributions to biodiversity conservation, insufficient capacity for forest revenue generation and mobilization, and restricted income generation and benefit-sharing with communities. The absence of timely and pertinent actions further stifled interaction between CFUGs and community forests, undermining the potential for revenue generation, job creation, and collective actions essential for productive community forest management. Prioritization of the indicators based on the performance index value offers critical policy direction to ensure CFUG sustainability and augment participatory management of common pool resources. Strategies to address identified weaknesses and build on strengths are essential for the success of Nepal’s community forests.

Suggested Citation

  • Nabin Dhungana & Chun-Hung Lee & Chiranjeewee Khadka & Samjhana Adhikari & Nabaraj Pudasaini & Pramod Ghimire, 2024. "Evaluating Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)’ Performance in Managing Community Forests: A Case Study in Central Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(11), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4471-:d:1401439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4471/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/11/4471/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:16:y:2024:i:11:p:4471-:d:1401439. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.