Resources use, conservation attitudes, management intervention and park-people relations in the Western Terai landscape of Nepal

Abstract

Various conservation models have been implemented in Nepal since 1973, however their impacts on resources use and conservation attitudes are scarcely known. To address the hypothesis that conservation attitudes should improve around protected areas (PAs) with more social and economic interventions, stratified random questionnaire surveys of 234 households were conducted in two PAs in the Western Terai of Nepal: Bardia National Park (BNP), in which interventions have been more widespread for longer time periods, and Sukla Phanta Wildlife Reserve (SWR), in which interventions are relatively recent. Both are part of a major landscape-level conservation programme under implementation in Nepal, and both are under threat of political turmoil, uncontrolled immigration, inefficient land reform policies and unsustainable resource use. There was spatio-temporal variability in resource use patterns and dependence. People collected eight and seven types of resources in BNP and SWR, respectively, and people in BNP were more dependent on resources overall. About 72% of respondents mentioned the problem of inadequate firewood, and suggested the promotion of alternative energy and permission to collect from PAs as mitigating strategies. Of 11 attitude statements, five significantly differed between the two areas. Respondents from the BNP had more favourable attitudes about conservation than those from SWR, supporting the main hypothesis. Training received by respondents, damage by wildlife, dependence on resources and satisfaction towards user groups contributed significantly to the variation in conservation attitudes. The results suggest that the liberalization of PA management has enabled the use of resources, improved livelihoods to some extent and solicited more favourable conservation attitudes in Nepal.

Crop Protection and Its Effectiveness against Wildlife: A Case Study of Two Villages of Shivapuri National Park, Nepal

“…According to Baral and Heinen (2007) farmlands located next to the national park boundary face a severed crop depredation compared to the farmlands far from the parks. Therefore, only households with farmland in the stretch of park boundary were selected for the survey following a simple random sampling method.…”

“…Issues such as loss of extraction rights and losses due to wildlife interferences and lack of or limited financial compensation have been highlighted as the root causes of conflict between the local communities and conservation programmes (Baral & Heinen 2007, Hill 1998, Karanth 2003. Similarly, illegal livestock grazing inside the park and transaction of forest products causes this imbalanced relationship (Studsord & Wegg 1995, Tamang & Baral 2008, Shrestha 1994.…”

“…Researchers have identified elephant (Elephus maximus), rhino (Rhinoceros unicornis), wild boar (Sus scrofa), deer (Axis axis) and monkey (Macaca mulatta) as the main raiders of crops in most of the protected areas of Nepal (Baral & Heinen 2007, Oli et al 1994, Strudsrod & Wegge 1995. Similarly, in Shivapuri National Park, wild boar, deer and porcupine are the major crop depredators in the surrounding villages (Pandey 2009).…”

Household Dependency on Buffer Zone Community Forest and its Implication for Management of Chitwan National Park, Nepal

“…This finding is corroborated by other studies in Nepal ). However, a study carried by Baral and Heinen (2007) found that the household size had the negative relationship with the forest dependency in the Bardia National Park and Suklaphata Wildlife Reserve of Nepal: however, since the relation is insignificant, it cannot possibly be a contradiction.…”

Poised for engagement? Local communities and Măcin Mountains National Park, Romania

“…Factors found to influence attitudes towards conservation and PAs elsewhere include age, gender, education, DCAs, ethnicity and religious affiliation (see e.g. de Boer and Baquete 1998; Mehta and Kellert 1998;Lindsey et al 2005;Allendorf 2007;Anthony 2007;Baral and Heinen 2007;Kideghesho et al 2007), and these were expected to have a potential to influence attitudes. However, none apply to our case, except education level.…”