2015Journal of Sustainable ForestryRequires access

Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Community Forest in Nepal

Anup K C, Indra Koirala, Naveen Adhikari

Open publisher page 17 citations

Abstract

Community forestry is an approach for mitigating deforestation and forest degradation by managing the forest resources for benefitting neighboring communities. Monetary benefits and costs are associated in a community forest during conservation and management of a forest. For sustainable forest management, the benefit should be more than cost which is a contesting issue of research. So, this study was conducted in a community forest of the central part of Nepal with the help of 80 household surveys and a focus group discussion. The firsthand information collected at the site is complimented by forest product harvest and cost-related secondary information. It was observed that the total annual harvest of timber was 60 cubic feet, pole was 8 cubic feet, firewood was 1,110 Bhari,1 fodder was 4,388 Bhari, and leaf litter was 590 Bhari. To manage a forest, people were involved in fencing, thinning, and meetings. Management cost was six times higher than administration cost. The benefit from firewood and fodder was more due to the dependency of people in a forest for enhancing their livelihood. The higher value of benefit cost ratio indicates that the Community Forest User Group benefited from community forest management.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Community forestry is an approach for mitigating deforestation and forest degradation by managing the forest resources for benefitting neighboring communities. Monetary benefits and costs are associated in a community forest during conservation and management of a forest. For sustainable forest management, the benefit should be more than cost which is a contesting issue of research. So, this study was conducted in a community forest of the central part of Nepal with the help of 80 household surveys and a focus group discussion. The firsthand information collected at the site is complimented by forest product harvest and cost-related secondary information. It was observed that the total annual harvest of timber was 60 cubic feet, pole was 8 cubic feet, firewood was 1,110 Bhari,1 fodder was 4,388 Bhari, and leaf litter was 590 Bhari. To manage a forest, people were involved in fencing, thinning, and meetings. Management cost was six times higher than administration cost. The benefit from firewood and fodder was more due to the dependency of people in a forest for enhancing their livelihood. The higher value of benefit cost ratio indicates that the Community Forest User Group benefited from community forest management.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 17 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Community forestry is an approach for mitigating deforestation and forest degradation by managing the forest resources for benefitting neighboring communities. Monetary benefits and costs are associated in a community forest during conservation and management of a forest. For sustainable forest management, the benefit should be more than cost which is a contesting issue of research. So, this study was conducted in a community forest of the central part of Nepal with the help of 80 household surveys and a focus group discussion. The firsthand information collected at the site is complimented by forest product harvest and cost-related secondary information. It was observed that the total annual harvest of timber was 60 cubic feet, pole was 8 cubic feet, firewood was 1,110 Bhari,1 fodder was 4,388 Bhari, and leaf litter was 590 Bhari. To manage a forest, people were involved in fencing, thinning, and meetings. Management cost was six times higher than administration cost. The benefit from firewood and fodder was more due to the dependency of people in a forest for enhancing their livelihood. The higher value of benefit cost ratio indicates that the Community Forest User Group benefited from community forest management.

Key concepts: Firewood, Fencing, Forest product, Livelihood, Forest management, Agroforestry, Community forestry, Sustainable forest management

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cost-Benefit Analysis of a Community Forest in Nepal — Research Paper | ScholarLens