Local Users and Other Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Identification and Prioritization of Ecosystem Services in Fragile Mountains: A Case Study of Chure Region of Nepal

Abstract

Forest-based ecosystem services (ES) play a vital role in improving people’s livelihoods, the environment, and the economy. Prior studies have focused on technical aspects of economic valuation such as biophysical quantification through modeling and mapping, or monetary valuation, while little attention has been paid to the social dimensions. Taking case studies of two dominant community-based forest management systems (community forestry—CF and collaborative forestry—CFM) in the Chure region of Nepal, we investigate how local users and other stakeholders perceive the valuation of forest-based ecosystem services based on proximity (nearby vs. distant users), socio-economic class (rich vs. poor users), and forest management modalities (CF vs. CFM). We found that local users and other stakeholders in the Chure region identified a total of 42 forest-based ecosystem services: 16 provisioning, 15 regulating, and 11 cultural services. While all local users prioritised firewood, water quality improvement, and bequest values as the top three services, genetic resources, hazard protection, and hunting services were valued as having the lowest priority. The priorities placed on other services varied in many respects. For instance, rich users living near a CF showed a strong preference for fodder, grasses, and soil conservation services whereas users living far from forests prioritised timber, fresh water, and flood control services. In the case of CFM, rich users adjacent to forests preferred timber, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration services but those living far from forests chose timber, poles, and flood control as their top priorities. Differences in rankings also occurred among the regional managers, national experts, and forest users. The reasons for these differences and their policy implications are discussed, and ways of reaching consensus between the users are suggested.

An Analysis of the Worldwide Research on the Socio-Cultural Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services

“…However, some studies classify the formation of the soil as regulating services [61,82], or the fertility of the soil as a supporting service [65]. This occurs with other services, such as the maintenance of nursery population and habitat and lifecycle maintenance, which have been found as supporting and regulating services; genetic materials, which have been found as a provisioning [105] and regulating service [70]; and aesthetics, which appears as both a cultural [35,106] and regulating service [67].…”

Socioecological outcomes from Community Forestry: Insights from Nepalese Stakeholders

“…In this paper, we aim to fill the knowledge gap through a detailed assessment of stakeholders' perspectives of the adoption of the relatively recent Community Forestry Management Plan (CFMP) under the Community Forestry (CF) programme in Nepal. In this undertaking, therefore, we investigate three key questions: (1) what is the stakeholder engagement process in designing, implementation practice of CFMP that makes ecologically friendly to the environment of Nepal under existing policy of government? (2) What is the understanding of key forestry stakeholders on CFMP and how do they perceive its significance and effectiveness to achieve ecological sustainability?…”

“…1 are as follows. First, in a power structure where the stakeholder is structured as shown proficient stakeholders 1 have an interest in high outcomes, one would expect to find proficient stakeholders dominating the CFMP decisions through monopolisation of community Forestry resources through federal law and policy. The CFs is viewed as trade commodities and only serves as production inputs.…”

An Ecosystem Services Valuation Research Framework for Policy Integration in Developing Countries: A Case Study from Nepal

“…These methods encourage social interactions and have potential for positive direct communication with local level stakeholders including local forest users [34]. The use patterns among particular local sub-groups could also be different and depend on a range of factors [48,49]. Thus, using stratified random sampling, researchers should collect information on the ES use among different sub-groups focusing on proximity to a forest, socio-economic status and forest management modalities in the local area [50].…”