IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v129y2023ics0264837723001230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Local stakeholders’ priorities and perceptions towards forest ecosystem services in the Red panda habitat region of Nepal

Author

Listed:
  • Koju, Upama
  • Karki, Sikha
  • Shrestha, Anita
  • Maraseni, Tek
  • Gautam, Ambika P.
  • Cadman, Tim
  • Sherpa, Ang Phuri
  • Lama, Sonam Tashi

Abstract

The Red panda (Ailurus fulgens) habitat has been providing several ecosystem services (ES) to the people; however, the differences in local stakeholders’ perceptions and preferences of these ecosystem services based on differences in their location, caste, gender, age, and engagement in CFUG are still understudied. This study was conducted using a telephone interview with 120 households from 28 Red panda habitat districts in the Himalayan range of Nepal. Respondents were asked to: (1) prioritize and rank the environmental (regulatory ES), economic (provisional ES), social, cultural, and spiritual importance of the Red panda habitat areas; (2) identify and prioritize the provisional ES; and (3) share their perceptions about the current state of the forest and biodiversity in comparison to the past decade to assess the change in Red panda habitat condition. Key findings include: (1) gender, caste, location, and involvement in community forest had a significant influence on people's perception and preference for ecosystem services (p < 0.05); (2) in overall, the environmental value of forests was significantly prioritized over the social, cultural, and economic values (p < 0.05); (3) provisional services such as fuelwood and fodder were significantly prioritized by Dalit and indigenous people and CFUG members, whereas timber was given the highest priority by the Brahmin and Chhetri caste groups (p < 0.05); and (4) forest cover, biodiversity, and forest condition have significantly improved in East Nepal over the past 10 years, while the reverse was true in West Nepal (p < 0.05). Information on the preferences of local communities could assist in planning, policymaking, and effective management of natural ecosystems and ecosystem services. More importantly, the findings provide a better understanding of the nature–human interactions in the Red panda region and indicate that people from marginalized groups (ethnic communities, Dalit, and women) still rely on forests (community forests in many cases), and any consideration in future policies should take this into account.

Suggested Citation

  • Koju, Upama & Karki, Sikha & Shrestha, Anita & Maraseni, Tek & Gautam, Ambika P. & Cadman, Tim & Sherpa, Ang Phuri & Lama, Sonam Tashi, 2023. "Local stakeholders’ priorities and perceptions towards forest ecosystem services in the Red panda habitat region of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:129:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723001230
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723001230
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106657?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ram Shrestha & Janaki Alavalapati, 2006. "Linking Conservation and Development: An Analysis of Local People’s Attitude Towards Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 69-84, February.
    2. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O. , 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    3. Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre & Goldstein, Joshua, 2012. "Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 8-18.
    4. Mensah, Sylvanus & Veldtman, Ruan & Assogbadjo, Achille Ephrem & Ham, Cori & Glèlè Kakaï, Romain & Seifert, Thomas, 2017. "Ecosystem service importance and use vary with socio-environmental factors: A study from household-surveys in local communities of South Africa," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 1-8.
    5. Steffen, Will & Young, Oran R. & Grove, J. Morgan & Kofinas, Gary P. & Carpenter, Stephen R. & Folke, Carl & Abel, Nick & Olsson, Per & Smith, D. Mark Stafford & Walker, Brian & Berkes, Fikret & Biggs, 2010. "Ecosystem Stewardship: Sustainability Strategies for a Rapidly Changing Planet," Scholarly Articles 9774650, Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
    6. Khatri-Chhetri, Arun & Aggarwal, P.K. & Joshi, P.K. & Vyas, S., 2017. "Farmers' prioritization of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) technologies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 184-191.
    7. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2020. "Assessing the financial contribution and carbon emission pattern of provisioning ecosystem services in Siwalik forests in Nepal: Valuation from the perspectives of disaggregated users," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    8. Maund, Phoebe R. & Irvine, Katherine N. & Dallimer, Martin & Fish, Robert & Austen, Gail E. & Davies, Zoe G., 2020. "Do ecosystem service frameworks represent people’s values?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    9. Khatri, Dil B. & Marquardt, Kristina & Pain, Adam & Ojha, Hemant, 2018. "Shifting regimes of management and uses of forests: What might REDD+ implementation mean for community forestry? Evidence from Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 1-10.
    10. 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.
    11. Kari, Susanna & Korhonen-Kurki, Kaisa, 2013. "Framing local outcomes of biodiversity conservation through ecosystem services: A case study from Ranomafana, Madagascar," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 3(C), pages 32-39.
    12. Israel Debra & Levinson Arik, 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Environmental Quality: Testable Empirical Implications of the Growth and Environment Literature," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Dipika Rana & Anupam Bhatt & Brij Lal & Om Parkash & Amit Kumar & Sanjay Kr. Uniyal, 2021. "Use of medicinal plants for treating different ailments by the indigenous people of Churah subdivision of district Chamba, Himachal Pradesh, India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 1162-1241, February.
    15. Chaudhary, Sunita & McGregor, Andrew & Houston, Donna & Chettri, Nakul, 2019. "Spiritual enrichment or ecological protection?: A multi-scale analysis of cultural ecosystem services at the Mai Pokhari, a Ramsar site of Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. Muhamad, Dendi & Okubo, Satoru & Harashina, Koji & Parikesit, & Gunawan, Budhi & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, 2014. "Living close to forests enhances people׳s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 197-206.
    17. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Burkhard, Benjamin & Bhandari, Santosh P. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2015. "Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 81-92.
    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. Ramos, Alya & Jujnovsky, Julieta & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía, 2018. "The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 85-95.
    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. Schusser, Carsten, 2013. "Who determines biodiversity? An analysis of actors' power and interests in community forestry in Namibia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 42-51.
    4. Tandarić, Neven & Ives, Christopher D. & Watkins, Charles, 2022. "From city in the park to “greenery in plant pots”: The influence of socialist and post-socialist planning on opportunities for cultural ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    5. Ahammad, Ronju & Stacey, Natasha & Sunderland, Terry C.H., 2019. "Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 87-98.
    6. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    7. 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.
    8. Wilhelm, Jennifer A. & Smith, Richard G. & Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Hurley, Stephanie, 2020. "Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. Feurer, Melanie & Rueff, Henri & Celio, Enrico & Heinimann, Andreas & Blaser, Juergen & Htun, Aung Myin & Zaehringer, Julie Gwendolin, 2021. "Regional scale mapping of ecosystem services supply, demand, flow and mismatches in Southern Myanmar," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Melanie Feurer & Andreas Heinimann & Flurina Schneider & Christine Jurt & Win Myint & Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer, 2019. "Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-19, March.
    12. Laudari, Hari Krishna & Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Pariyar, Shiva & Pant, Basant & Bhattarai, Sushma & Kaini, Tika Raj & Karki, Gyanendra & Marahattha, Anisha, 2022. "Sixty-five years of forest restoration in Nepal: Lessons learned and way forward," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    13. Ram Prasad Acharya & Tek Narayan Maraseni & Geoff Cockfield, 2020. "An Ecosystem Services Valuation Research Framework for Policy Integration in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-15, October.
    14. Shoyama, Kikuko & Kamiyama, Chiho & Morimoto, Junko & Ooba, Makoto & Okuro, Toshiya, 2017. "A review of modeling approaches for ecosystem services assessment in the Asian region," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 316-328.
    15. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    16. Mengist, Wondimagegn & Soromessa, Teshome & Feyisa, Gudina Legese & Jenerette, G. Darrel, 2022. "Socio-environmental determinants of the perceived value of moist Afromontane forest ecosystem services in Kaffa Biosphere Reserve, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    18. Bélisle, Annie Claude & Wapachee, Alice & Asselin, Hugo, 2021. "From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    19. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    20. Sharif A. Mukul & Anja Byg, 2020. "What Determines Indigenous Chepang Farmers’ Swidden Land-Use Decisions in the Central Hill Districts of Nepal?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, July.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:129:y:2023:i:c:s0264837723001230. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.