IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0203106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Omkar Joshi
  • Rajan Parajuli
  • Gehendra Kharel
  • Neelam C Poudyal
  • Eric Taylor

Abstract

Despite its widespread recognition as a successful model of participatory forest management, the community forestry program in Nepal is often criticized for its protection-oriented emphasis. Recognizing the need for more active timber management, the government of Nepal recently adopted a scientific forest management (SFM) policy in the lowland tropical region. In this study, strength, weakness, opportunity, and threat analytical hierarchical process criteria were employed to understand stakeholder perceptions concerning SFM implementation in Nepal. The overall perception was prioritized in the order of strengths (35%), threats (28%), opportunities (22%), and weaknesses (16%). The study results suggest that there is agreement among stakeholders regarding the need for active management of forests in the tropical lowland region. However, the perceptions of academic researchers and non-government organization professionals differed from those of the other stakeholders in that those two groups were more concerned about potential corruption and uncertainties surrounding policy and legal issues. The findings suggest that the long-term success of SFM may depend on the ability of the government to develop a mechanism that is transparent and capable of ensuring equitable benefit sharing among stakeholders. While the stakeholder perception analysis performed in this study was focused on SFM implementation in Nepal, the results could have implications for other countries that practice the participatory model of forest governance as well.

Suggested Citation

  • Omkar Joshi & Rajan Parajuli & Gehendra Kharel & Neelam C Poudyal & Eric Taylor, 2018. "Stakeholder opinions on scientific forest management policy implementation in Nepal," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0203106
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0203106&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0203106?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Varughese, George & Ostrom, Elinor, 2001. "The Contested Role of Heterogeneity in Collective Action: Some Evidence from Community Forestry in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 747-765, May.
    2. Adhikari, Bhim & Williams, Frances & Lovett, Jon C., 2007. "Local benefits from community forests in the middle hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(5), pages 464-478, January.
    3. Catron, Jonathan & Stainback, G. Andrew & Dwivedi, Puneet & Lhotka, John M., 2013. "Bioenergy development in Kentucky: A SWOT-ANP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 38-43.
    4. Marcus Colchester, 1994. "Sustaining the Forests: The Community‐based Approach in South and South‐East Asia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 25(1), pages 69-100, January.
    5. Agrawal, Arun & Gupta, Krishna, 2005. "Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal's Terai," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1101-1114, July.
    6. Dwivedi, Puneet & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R., 2009. "Stakeholders' perceptions on forest biomass-based bioenergy development in the southern US," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1999-2007, May.
    7. Shrestha, Ram K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R. R. & Kalmbacher, Robert S., 2004. "Exploring the potential for silvopasture adoption in south-central Florida: an application of SWOT-AHP method," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 185-199, September.
    8. Andrea J. Nightingale & Hemant R. Ojha, 2013. "Rethinking Power and Authority: Symbolic Violence and Subjectivity in Nepal's Terai Forests," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 44(1), pages 29-51, January.
    9. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.
    10. Masozera, Michel K. & Alavalapati, Janaki R.R. & Jacobson, Susan K. & Shrestha, Ram K., 2006. "Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 206-216, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek, 2020. "A postmortem of forest policy dynamics of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    2. Basnyat, Bijendra & Treue, Thorsten & Pokharel, Ridish Kumar & Baral, Srijana & Rumba, Yam Bahadur, 2020. "Re-centralisation through fake Scientificness: The case of community forestry in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Maraseni, Tek & Poudyal, Bishnu Hari & Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 in the forestry sector: A case of lowland region of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Shrestha, Krishna Kumar & Acharya, Bishnu Prasad, 2021. "Contested forest management and the Nepalese Government’s forest policy," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 23(C).
    7. Georgia J Riggs & Omkar Joshi & Scott R Loss, 2022. "Stakeholder perceptions of bird-window collisions," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.

    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. Haque, H.M. Enamul & Dhakal, Shobhakar & Mostafa, S.M.G., 2020. "An assessment of opportunities and challenges for cross-border electricity trade for Bangladesh using SWOT-AHP approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    2. Chanthawong, Anuman & Dhakal, Shobhakar, 2016. "Stakeholders' perceptions on challenges and opportunities for biodiesel and bioethanol policy development in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 189-206.
    3. Collins Okello & Stefania Pindozzi & Salvatore Faugno & Lorenzo Boccia, 2014. "Appraising Bioenergy Alternatives in Uganda Using Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)-Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and a Desirability Functions Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-22, February.
    4. Tahseen, Samiha & Karney, Bryan, 2017. "Opportunities for increased hydropower diversion at Niagara: An sSWOT analysis," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 757-770.
    5. Ojha, Hemant R. & Ford, Rebecca & Keenan, Rodney J. & Race, Digby & Carias Vega, Dora & Baral, Himlal & Sapkota, Prativa, 2016. "Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 274-290.
    6. Sapkota, Prativa & Keenan, Rodney J. & Ojha, Hemant R., 2018. "Community institutions, social marginalization and the adaptive capacity: A case study of a community forestry user group in the Nepal Himalayas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-64.
    7. Uddin, Mohammad Nizam & Hossain, Mohammad Mosharraf & Chen, Yong & Siriwong, Wapakorn & Boonyanuphap, Jaruntorn, 2019. "Stakeholders' perception on indigenous community-based management of village common forests in Chittagong hill tracts, Bangladesh," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 102-112.
    8. Darshini, Dina & Dwivedi, Puneet & Glenk, Klaus, 2013. "Capturing stakeholders´ views on oil palm-based biofuel and biomass utilisation in Malaysia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1128-1137.
    9. Bega, François & Lin, Boqiang, 2023. "China's belt & road initiative energy cooperation: International assessment of the power projects," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    10. Kahsay, Goytom Abraha & Medhin, Haileselassie, 2020. "Leader turnover and forest management outcomes: Micro-level evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    12. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    13. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    14. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    16. Zelin Liu & Xiyan Duan & Hongling Cheng & Zhaoran Liu & Ping Li & Yang Zhang, 2023. "Empowering High-Quality Development of the Chinese Sports Education Market in Light of the “Double Reduction” Policy: A Hybrid SWOT-AHP Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    17. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    18. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Paudel, Jayash, 2016. "Community-Managed Forests and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235481, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local citizen group dynamics in the implementation of community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0203106. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.