What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal

被引:82
作者
Birch, Jennifer C. [1 ]
Thapa, Ishana [2 ]
Balmford, Andrew [3 ]
Bradbury, Richard B. [4 ]
Brown, Claire [5 ]
Butchart, Stuart H. M. [1 ]
Gurung, Hum [2 ]
Hughes, Francine M. R. [6 ]
Mulligan, Mark [7 ]
Pandeya, Bhopal [7 ]
Peh, Kelvin S-H. [3 ]
Stattersfield, Alison J. [1 ]
Walpole, Matt [5 ]
Thomas, David H. L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Wellbrook Court, BirdLife Int, Cambridge CB3 0NA, England
[2] Bird Conservat Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal
[3] Univ Cambridge, Dept Zool, Conservat Sci Grp, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, England
[4] Royal Soc Protect Birds, RSPB Ctr Conservat Sci, Sandy SG19 2DL, Beds, England
[5] United Nations Environm Programme World Conservat, Cambridge CB3 0DL, England
[6] Anglia Ruskin Univ, Dept Life Sci, Anim & Environm Res Grp, Cambridge CB1 1PT, England
[7] Kings Coll London, Dept Geog, London WC2R 2LS, England
关键词
Beneficiaries; Biodiversity conservation; Community forestry; Equity; Livelihoods; Participatory management; PROTECTED AREAS; BIOMASS; CONSERVATION; GOVERNANCE; PAYMENTS; CARBON; EQUITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.03.005
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
In Nepal, community forestry is part of a national strategy for livelihoods improvement and environmental protection. However, analysis of the social, economic and environmental impacts of community forestry is often limited, restricted to a narrow set of benefits (e.g. non-timber forest products) and rarely makes comparisons with alternative land-use options (e.g. agriculture). This study, conducted at Phulchoki Mountain Forest Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) in the Kathmandu Valley, used methods from the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) to compare multiple ecosystem service values (including carbon storage, greenhouse gas sequestration, water provision, water quality, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods and nature-based recreation) provided by the site in its current state and a plausible alternative state in which community forestry had not been implemented. We found that outcomes from community forestry have been favourable for most stakeholders, at most scales, for most services and for important biodiversity at the site. However, not all ecosystem services can be maximised simultaneously, and impacts of land-use decisions on service beneficiaries appear to differ according to socio-economic factors. The policy implications of our findings are discussed in the context of proposals to designate Phulchoki Mountain Forest IBA as part of a Conservation Area (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:118 / 127
页数:10
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] Poverty, property rights and collective action: understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource management
    Adhikari, H
    [J]. ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS, 2005, 10 : 7 - 31
  • [2] Changing governance of the world's forests
    Agrawal, Arun
    Chhatre, Ashwini
    Hardin, Rebecca
    [J]. SCIENCE, 2008, 320 (5882) : 1460 - 1462
  • [3] Residents' attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal
    Allendorf, Teri D.
    [J]. BIODIVERSITY AND CONSERVATION, 2007, 16 (07) : 2087 - 2102
  • [4] The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems
    Anderson-Teixeira, Kristina J.
    DeLucia, Evan H.
    [J]. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY, 2011, 17 (01) : 425 - 438
  • [5] [Anonymous], P INT C RUR LIV FOR
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2012, World Economic Outlook Database
  • [7] [Anonymous], P INT C INT WAT RES
  • [8] [Anonymous], 2011, HIMALAYAN TIMES 1204
  • [9] [Anonymous], 2009, CARB VAL UK POL APPR
  • [10] Forests to the People: Decentralization and Forest Degradation in the Indian Himalayas
    Baland, Jean-Marie
    Bardhan, Pranab
    Das, Sanghamitra
    Mookherjee, Dilip
    [J]. WORLD DEVELOPMENT, 2010, 38 (11) : 1642 - 1656