Stakeholder perspectives on the effectiveness of governance in red panda conservation programmes in Nepal: a comparative analysis

被引:6
作者
Shrestha, Anita [1 ]
Karki, Sikha [2 ]
Koju, Upama [1 ]
Maraseni, Tek [3 ]
Gautam, Ambika P. [1 ]
Cadman, Tim [4 ]
Baral, Sony [5 ]
机构
[1] Kathmandu Forestry Coll, Kathmandu, Nepal
[2] Griffith Univ, Cities Res Inst, Gold Coast Campus, Southport, Qld, Australia
[3] Univ Southern Queensland, Ctr Sustainable Agr Syst, Toowomba, Australia
[4] Griffith Univ, Inst Eth Governance & Law, Nathan, Qld, Australia
[5] Tribhuvan Univ, Inst Forestry, Sch Forestry & Nat Resource Management, Kathmandu, Nepal
关键词
Graciela Rusch; Forest governance; red panda conservation; stakeholders; resources; livelihood; Nepal; FOREST GOVERNANCE; COMMUNITY FORESTRY; PEOPLES PERCEPTIONS; MANAGEMENT; INEQUALITY; RESOURCES; IMPACTS; ECOLOGY; POVERTY; MODELS;
D O I
10.1080/26395916.2022.2121762
中图分类号
X176 [生物多样性保护];
学科分类号
090705 ;
摘要
This paper investigates the views of multi-stakeholders on the governance quality of existing forest management strategies for red panda (Ailurus fulgens) protection in Nepal, focusing on forest governance in general, red panda conservation programmes and natural habitat protection in particular. The study deployed two surveys in August and September 2020. The first survey was conducted online for the stakeholders with internet access; for those without, it was conducted over the phone. While the results reveal almost similar perspectives among the stakeholders regarding the effectiveness of the red panda management approaches, they differ significantly between the online survey and telephonic survey, in terms of the relative scores given to these initiatives. In depth, follow-up interviews revealed that marginalised groups had little access to income generation from conservation activities and few capacity-building opportunities. These findings indicate that while management strategies for red panda conservation were generally considered effective by online survey participants which are generally more privileged, this is less effective for marginalised people. Local people, who are typically resource-poor and reliant on the forest, continue to endure inequitable resource distribution and benefit sharing. Consequently, greater attention should be paid to balancing the conservation needs and basic needs of forest-dependent communities through capacity building, income generation and alternative sources of livelihood.
引用
收藏
页码:547 / 565
页数:19
相关论文
共 113 条
  • [1] Abaza H., 2002, CAPACITY BUILDING SU
  • [2] Local communities' perceptions about the impact of protected areas on livelihoods and community development
    Abukari, Haruna
    Mwalyosi, Raphael Benedict
    [J]. GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION, 2020, 22
  • [3] Inequalities, institutions, and forest commons
    Andersson, Krister
    Agrawal, Arun
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2011, 21 (03): : 866 - 875
  • [4] Wealth and the distribution of benefits from tropical forests: Implications for REDD
    Andersson, Krister P.
    Smith, Steven M.
    Alston, Lee J.
    Duchelle, Amy E.
    Mwangi, Esther
    Larson, Anne M.
    de Sassi, Claudio
    Sills, Erin O.
    Sunderlin, William D.
    Wong, Grace Y.
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2018, 72 : 510 - 522
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2016, NATL SURVEY RE UNPUB
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2012, AUSTRIAN J S E ASIA
  • [7] The effects of corporate governance on firms' credit ratings
    Ashbaugh-Skaife, Hollis
    Collins, Daniel W.
    LaFond, Ryan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ACCOUNTING & ECONOMICS, 2006, 42 (1-2) : 203 - 243
  • [8] What Governs Tree Harvesting in Community ForestryRegulatory Instruments or Forest Bureaucrats' Discretion?
    Baral, Sony
    Vacik, Harald
    [J]. FORESTS, 2018, 9 (10)
  • [9] Legal-sounding bureaucratic re-centralisation of community forestry in Nepal
    Basnyat, Bijendra
    Treue, Thorsten
    Pokharel, Ridish Kumar
    Lamsal, Lok Nath
    Rayamajhi, Santosh
    [J]. FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, 2018, 91 : 5 - 18
  • [10] Bebchuk LA, 2009, U PENN LAW REV, V157, P1263