Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회지)

Korean Society of Forest Science (한국산림과학회)
권호 표지

Households' Characteristics, Forest Resources Dependency and Forest Availability in Central Terai of Nepal

  • Panta, Menaka (Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University) ;
  • Kim, Kyehyun (Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University) ;
  • Lee, Cholyoung (Department of Geoinformatic Engineering, Inha University)
  • Received : 2009.06.11
  • Accepted : 2009.10.19
  • Published : 2009.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

For centuries, forests have been a key component of rural livelihood. They are important both socially and economically in Nepal. Firewood and fodder are the basic forest products that are extracted daily or weekly basis in most of the rural areas in Nepal. In this study, a field survey of 100 households was conducted to examine the degree of forest dependency and forest resource availability, households' livelihood strategy and their relationship with forest dependency in Chitwan, Nepal. A household' response indexes were constructed, Gini coefficient, Head Count Poverty Index (HCI) and Poverty Gap Index (PGI) were calculated and one way ANOVA test was also performed for data analysis. Data revealed that 82/81% of all households were constantly used forest for firewood and fodder collection respectively while 42% of households were used forest or forest fringe for grazing. The Forest Product Availability Indexes (FPAI) showed a sharp decline of forest resources from 0.781 to 0.308 for a 20-yr time horizon while timber wood was noticeably lowered than the other products. Yet, about 33% of households were below the poverty threshold line with 0.0945 PGI. Income distribution among the household showed a lower Gini coefficient 0.25 than 0.37 of landholdings size. However, mean income was significantly varies with F-statistics=246.348 at P=0.05 between income groups (rich, medium and poor). The extraction of firewood, fodder and other forest products were significantly different between the income group with F-statistics=16.480, 19.930, 29.956 at P=0.05 respectively. Similarly, landholdings size and education were also significantly different between the income groups with F-statistics=4.333, 5.981 at P=0.05 respectively. These findings suggested that income status of households was the major indicator of forest dependency while poor and medium groups were highly dependent on the forests for firewood, fodder and other products. Forest dependency still remains high and the availability of forest products that can be extracted from the remaining forestlands is decreasing. The high dependency of households on forest coupled with other socioeconomic attributes like education, poverty, small landholders and so on were possibly caused the forest degradation in Chitwan.Therefore, policy must be directed towards the poor livelihood supporting agenda that may enhance the financial conditions of rural households while it could reduce the degree of forest dependency inspired with other income generating activities in due course.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Inha University

References

  1. Angelsen, A. and Kaimowitz, D. 1999. Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models. The World Bank Research Observer 14: 3-98
  2. ADB. 2004. Asian Development Bank. Country Environment Analysis for Nepal
  3. Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. and Lovett, J.C. 2004. Household Characteristics and Forest Dependency: Evidence from Common Property Forest Management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48: 245-257 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.008
  4. Adhikari, B., Williams, F. and Lovett, J.C. 2007. Local Benefits from Community Forests in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 464-478 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2005.11.002
  5. Dayal, V. 2006. A microeconometric analysis of household extraction of forest biomass goods in Ranthambhore National Park, India. Journal of Forest Economics 12: 145-163 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2006.05.001
  6. Elands, B.H., O'Leary, T.N., Boerwinkel, H.W. and Wiersum, K.F. 2004. Forests as a Mirror of Rural Conditions; Local Views on the Role of Forests Across Europe. Forest Policy and Economics 6: 469-482 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.01.003
  7. Fox, J.M. 1984. Firewood Consumption in a Nepali Village. Environmental Management 8: 243-250 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01866966
  8. FAO. 1999. Annotated Bibliography, Forest Cover Change, Nepal. Forest Resources Assessment Programme (FRA), Forest Resources Division (FRD), FAO Rome
  9. FRA. 2000. Global Forest Resource Assessment Main Report 2000. Food and Agriculture Organizations of the United Nations
  10. Geist, H.J. and Lambin, E.F. 2001. What Drives Deforestation? A Meta-Analysis of Proximate and Underlying Causes of Deforestation Based on Sub-National Case Study Evidence, LUCC Report Series, vol. 4. LUCC International Project Office, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.116p
  11. Grainger, A. and Malayang III, B.S. 2006. A Model of Policy Changes to Secure Sustainable Forest Management and Control of Deforestation in the Philippines. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 67-80 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.05.005
  12. Gautam, K.H. 2006. Forestry, Politicians and Power-Perspectives from Nepal’s Forest Policy. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 175-182 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2004.07.001
  13. Heltberg, R., Arndt, T.C. and Sekhar, N.U. 2000. Fuelwood consumption and forest degradation: a household model for domestic energy substitution in rural India. Land Economics 76: 213-232 https://doi.org/10.2307/3147225
  14. Luoga, E.J., Witkowski, E.T. and Balkwill, K. 2002. Harvested and Standing Wood Stocks in Protected and Communal Miombo Woodlands of Eastern Tanzania. Forest Ecology and Management 164: 15-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00604-1
  15. Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E. and Vedeld, P. 2007. Economic Dependence on Forest Resources: A Case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 916-927 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.08.001
  16. Namaalwa, J., Sankhayan, P.L. and Hofstad, O. 2007. A Dynamic Bio-economic Model for Analyzing Deforestation and Degradation: An Application to Woodlands in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 479-495 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2006.01.001
  17. NRC. 2008. Natural Resources Canada. Ecosystem Services: The Total Value of the Forest. http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/articletopic
  18. Odihi, J. 2003. Deforestation in Afforestation Priority Zone in Sudano-Sahelian Nigeria. Applied Geography 23: 227-259 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2003.08.004
  19. Pattanayak, S.K., Sills, E.O. and Kramer, R.A. 2004. Seeing the forest for the fuel. Environment and Development Economics 9: 155-179 https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X03001220
  20. Panta, M., Kim, K. and Joshi, C. 2008. Temporal mapping of deforestation and forest degradation in Nepal: Applications to forest conservation. Forest Ecology and Management 256: 1587-1595 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.07.023
  21. Panta, M., Kim, K. and Lee, C. 2009. People's livelihood and their perception towards forest degradation in central Nepal: The households' perspective. NSDI Korea, 2009, GIS joint Conference of KSISS, KOGSIS, GISAK, Sept, 10, 2009, KINTEX, Korea
  22. Ribot, J.C. 1993. Forestry policy and Charcoal Production in Senegal. Energy Policy 21: 559-585 https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(93)90041-D
  23. Reddy, S.R. and Chakravarty, S.P. 1999. Forest Dependence and Income Distribution in a Subsistence Economy: Evidence from India. World Development 27: 1141-1149 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(99)00057-1
  24. SOE. 2001. State of the Environment. Report on State of Environment of Nepal
  25. Sankhayan, P.L. and Hofstad, O. 2001. A Village-level Economic Model of Land Clearing, Grazing, and Wood Harvesting for sub-Saharan Africa: With a Case Study in Southern Senegal. Ecological Economics 38: 423-440 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00189-6
  26. Sunderlin, W.D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L. and Wunder, S. 2005. Livelihoods, Forests, and Conservation in Developing Countries: An Overview. World Development 33: 1383-1402 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.10.004
  27. Sapkota, I.P. and Oden, P.C. 2008. Household Characteristics and Forest Dependency on Community Forests in Terai of Nepal. International Journal of Social Forestry 1: 123-144
  28. UNCED, 1992. National Report on United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. Kathmandu: HMG
  29. UN, 1995. The world’s women 1995: Trends and statistics. New York: United Nations
  30. USDA, 2007. The US Department of Agriculture. http://www.fs.fed.us/ecosystemservices
  31. Wunder, S. 2001. Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forest-What Scope for Synergies? World Development 29: 1817-1833 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00070-5