Local users and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the identification and prioritization of ecosystem services in fragile mountains: a case study of Chure Region of Nepal

Acharya, Ram Prasad and Maraseni, Tek Narayan and Cockfield, Geoff (2019) Local users and other stakeholders’ perceptions of the identification and prioritization of ecosystem services in fragile mountains: a case study of Chure Region of Nepal. Forests, 10 (421). pp. 1-20.

Text (Published version)
forests-MDPI Ram et al.pdf
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

Download (2MB) | Preview


Forest-based ecosystem services (ES) play a vital role in improving people’s livelihoods, the environment, and the economy. Prior studies have focused on technical aspects of economic valuation such as biophysical quantification through modeling and mapping, or monetary valuation, while little attention has been paid to the social dimensions. Taking case studies of two dominant community-based forest management systems (community forestry—CF and collaborative forestry—CFM) in the Chure region of Nepal, we investigate how local users and other stakeholders perceive the valuation of forest-based ecosystem services based on proximity (nearby vs. distant users), socio-economic class (rich vs. poor users), and forest management modalities (CF vs. CFM). We found that local users and other stakeholders in the Chure region identified a total of 42 forest-based ecosystem services: 16 provisioning, 15 regulating, and 11 cultural services. While all local users prioritised firewood, water quality improvement, and bequest values as the top three services, genetic resources, hazard protection, and hunting services were valued as having the lowest priority. The priorities placed on other services varied in many respects. For instance, rich users living near a CF showed a strong preference for fodder, grasses, and soil conservation services whereas users living far from forests prioritised timber, fresh water, and flood control services. In the case of CFM, rich users adjacent to forests preferred timber, soil conservation, and carbon sequestration services but those living far from forests chose timber, poles, and flood control as their top priorities. Differences in rankings also occurred among the regional managers, national experts, and forest users. The reasons for these differences and their policy implications are discussed, and ways of reaching consensus between the users are suggested.

Statistics for USQ ePrint 36523
Statistics for this ePrint Item
Item Type: Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C)
Refereed: Yes
Item Status: Live Archive
Additional Information: Published version made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license 4.0.
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: No Faculty
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: No Faculty
Date Deposited: 29 May 2019 04:08
Last Modified: 25 Jun 2019 01:19
Uncontrolled Keywords: forests; valuation; community-based forest management
Fields of Research (2008): 07 Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences > 0705 Forestry Sciences > 070504 Forestry Management and Environment
Fields of Research (2020): 30 AGRICULTURAL, VETERINARY AND FOOD SCIENCES > 3007 Forestry sciences > 300707 Forestry management and environment
Socio-Economic Objectives (2008): D Environment > 96 Environment > 9605 Ecosystem Assessment and Management > 960505 Ecosystem Assessment and Management of Forest and Woodlands Environments
Identification Number or DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f10050421
URI: http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/36523

Actions (login required)

View Item Archive Repository Staff Only