Impacts of Community Forestry on Livelihoods in the Middle Hills of Nepal
Oliver Springate‐Baginski, John Soussan
Abstract
Oliver Springate‐Baginski, John Soussan
Abstract
This paper attempts to assess the livelihood impacts of community forestry based on Forest User Groups (FUGs) in the Middle hills of Nepal, using data from the Koshi hills region in the East. The general finding is that impacts are diverse both within and between FUGs, but have been generally positive, in terms of improved levels and security of forest product and benefit flows, various household incomegenerating opportunities, support for community infrastructure and development activities, and improved ‘social capital’ for collective planning and action. Nevertheless, impacts to date are below their potential, and the needs of rural households require more investigation to determine what further opportunities exist and how policy and extension agencies may offer specific needs-oriented support.
OpenAlex reports 113 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This paper attempts to assess the livelihood impacts of community forestry based on Forest User Groups (FUGs) in the Middle hills of Nepal, using data from the Koshi hills region in the East. The general finding is that impacts are diverse both within and between FUGs, but have been generally positive, in terms of improved levels and security of forest product and benefit flows, various household incomegenerating opportunities, support for community infrastructure and development activities, and improved ‘social capital’ for collective planning and action. Nevertheless, impacts to date are below their potential, and the needs of rural households require more investigation to determine what further opportunities exist and how policy and extension agencies may offer specific needs-oriented support.
Key concepts: Livelihood, Community forestry, Forest product, Business, Social capital, Collective action, Product (mathematics), Forestry