Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
S113S124, 2014
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
0305-750X/$ - see front matter
www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.011
and
LILA PURI, SANTOSH RAYAMAJHI *
Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara, Nepal
Summary. Lack of combined forest productivity and income studies means there is scant evidence for the sustainability of rural
household-level forest incomes in developing countries. This study examines levels and patterns of forest increment, wood product
extraction, and household-level incomes in three community managed forests in Nepal, using data from 240 permanent sample plots
and a structured household survey conducted in 2006 and 2009 (n = 507 and 558, respectively). We nd that analyses of sustainability
need to recognize the complexity of forest stand utilization, and that there is considerable scope, by altering how existing local forest
management rules are implemented, for increasing rural household forest incomes while keeping harvesting levels sustainable.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words sustainability, commons, participatory forest management, livelihoods, Himalayas, South Asia
1. INTRODUCTION
S114
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
where tree ring analysis is also still in its infancy (Vetter &
Wimmer, 1999). Finally, such studies require coordinated research across the natural and social sciences which remains
challenging (Lele & Kurien, 2011).
Comprehensive investigation of forest income sustainability
(see Section 2a), assuming a constant governance framework,
requires three basic building blocks: information on forest
product quantities extracted, valuation of these quantities,
and species level increment (e.g., m3 ha 1yr 1) estimates.
While there are no studies in rural communities and natural
forests in developing countries covering all three building
blocks, a large literature exists that deals with one or two.
Forest product extraction studies typically focus on a specic
product group, e.g., rewood, without valuing household
income from the products. Such studies typically provide
local scale estimates of annual household consumption using
a combination of key informant interviews, footpath surveys,
weight surveys, or construction timber surveys (e.g.,
Appasamy, 1993; Bolton & McClaran, 2008; Fox, 1984;
Metz, 1994; Singh, Rawat, & Verma, 2010; Watkins, 2009)
or indirect measures such as recording tree stump diameters
and ages in plots with subsequent conversion to total tree volume (Bufum, Gratzer, & Tenzin, 2008; Chettri, Sharma, Deb,
& Sundriyal, 2002; Sundriyal & Sharma, 1996). Higher scale
studies seek to identify determinants of household-level forest
product consumption patterns (e.g., Dayal, 2006; Guptaa &
Kohlin, 2006). Many forest income studies (mentioned above,
e.g., Mamo et al., 2007; Uberhuaga et al., 2012) use structured questionnaires to estimate household forest income
for all major forest product groups. Few studies from developing countries provide tree species-level growth estimates.
Methods applied are biomass measurement for trees of
known age (e.g., Applegate, Gilmour, & Mohns, 1988), tree
ring analysis (e.g., Bolton & McClaran, 2008), and rarely
time-series measurements from permanent sample plots
(Chettri et al., 2002).
To avoid the large quantities of data required for comprehensive local evaluations of sustainability, the use of proxies
is common. For instance, proxies used to indicate forest
condition (which is then used to assess sustainability of use)
are: partial vegetation structure data (e.g., Bajracharya,
1983; Bufum et al., 2008; Coleman, 2009; Ganesan, 1993;
Hegetschweiler, van Loon, Ryser, Rusterholz, & Baur, 2009;
Maren & Vetaas, 2007), frequency of stumps (Urgenson
et al., 2010), availability of used or preferred species
(Appasamy, 1993; Gugushe, Grundy, Theron, & Chirwa,
2008; Strde, Nebel, & Rijal, 2002; Webb & Dhakal, 2011),
diversity of indicator species and dead wood availability
(Christensen & Heilmann-Clausen, 2009; Christensen,
Rayamajhi, & Meilby, 2009; Hegetschweiler et al., 2009),
forest users and/or foresters perception of forest condition
(Bajracharya, Furley, & Newton, 2005; Gibson, Williams, &
Ostrom, 2005; Hayes, 2006), changes in land cover classes
(Abbott & Homewood, 1999), and changes in forest product
availability (Urgenson et al., 2010) or collection time (Baland,
Bardhan, Das, Mookherjee, & Sarkar, 2010). Most sustainability proxy studies ignore valuation and income or use rough
proxies such as the percent of households that depend substantially on the forest for subsistence livelihoods as an indicator of livelihood contributions of the same forest (Persha,
Agrawal, & Chhatre, 2011, p. 1606). At any rate, when assessing sustainability it is advantageous to use inventories rather
than proxies as this allows for a more accurate and nuanced
understanding of the many complex aspects involved, including spatial, temporal, species and intra-species variations.
ARE FOREST INCOMES SUSTAINABLE? FIREWOOD AND TIMBER EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN COMMUNITY S115
products collected outside the forest. 1 Farm income is the economic value from crop and livestock production including
wages for on-farm work. Crop income derives from subsistence and cash annual and perennial crops, including from
agroforestry and horticulture; livestock income comprises subsistence use and sales of livestock products, also live animals,
and services but excludes incremental stock value changes.
Non-farm income refers to income from other sources than
the three above: primarily self-owned businesses, remittances,
pensions, and non-farm salaries and wages.
Inspired by Haberl et al. (2006), forest income is narrowly
dened as sustainable if the wood-based forest products,
whose harvest results in the income, can be sustained without
long-term decrease in forest biomass. Forest biomass is assumed not to be compromised if, in the long term, the annual
harvest does not exceed 80% of the annual increment of
woody biomass. This percentage is similar to the adjustment
factor applied by, e.g., Meyer (1943) and represents a margin
of safety which ascertains that woody biomass is not overexploited even if its increment is overestimated slightly (e.g.,
due to short-term climatic uctuations or the fact that measurements are only ve years apart), or if current stocking is
below the normal level. Note that the applied denition means
that forest income can be sustainable even if ecological or social sustainability is not maintained, e.g., if one species disappears, forest income is sustainable if the same income can be
derived from other species.
(b) Study sites
Three study sites were selected in 2004 to cover the altitudinal variation in Nepal (Meilby et al., 2006) and thereby the
variation in agricultural production, forest types, and market
access (Table 1). Here they are referred to as the Lowlands,
Middle hills and High mountains sites. Forest management
at all sites is subject to similar governance constraints 2: forests
are government owned, communities have use and management rights, and there is a high degree of rule enforcement.
In general, there is little deforestation at any of the sites. Products such as rewood are typically harvested by individual
households. Commercial sale of timber is de jure allowed but
does not de facto take place as the procedures are complex
and not encouraged by local forest administrations. Local forest user groups are required to submit management plans
detailing rules for collection of rewood and non-timber forest
products, annual allowable cut, rotational harvesting and
regeneration, etc., to the Department of Forests for approval.
De facto, most forest management plans are drawn up by the
Department of Forests; they typically limit rewood collection
to dead wood and set a low quota for timber extraction which
may only be used for community or personal purposes. To cut
Lowlands
Middle hills
District
Elevation (meters above sea level)
Accessibility
Chitwan
350
By motorable gravel road
Kaski
1000
By tarmac road, bus service
High mountains
Mustang
22003000
By plane and foot, from 2008
by gravel road
Tourism, farming
Pinus wallichiana
1177.8
No
300
S116
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 2. Overview of absolute and relative distribution (%) of trees (n = 9603) to categories based on permanent sample plot (n = 240) data, per site, Nepal,
20052010
Tree classa
Live
Dead
Harvested
Ingrowth
Missing
Total
2224 (61.5)
4 (0.1)
756 (20.9)
633 (17.5)
1 (0.0)
3618 (100.0)
1786 (75.2)
6 (0.3)
402 (16.9)
180 (7.6)
0 (0.0)
2374 (100.0)
3101 (85.9)
40 (1.1)
254 (7.0)
210 (5.8)
6 (0.2)
3611 (100.0)
7111 (74.0)
50 (0.5)
1412 (14.7)
1023 (10.7)
7 (0.1)
9603 (100.0)
Live trees were alive both in 2005 and 2010; Dead trees were alive in 2005 and dead but still present in the forest in 2010; Harvested trees were
felled during 200510; Ingrowth are trees that were measured in 2010 but were too small in 2005; Missing are trees that were registered but with no
measurements recorded.
ARE FOREST INCOMES SUSTAINABLE? FIREWOOD AND TIMBER EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN COMMUNITY S117
Table 3. Forest area, stock, increment and extraction data based on permanent sample plot (n = 240) data and extraction data based on household (n = 507
in 2006 and 558 in 2009) surveys, per site, Nepal, 20052010
Site
Lowlands
Middle hills
High mountains
Forest area
Standing stock
Change of
stock
Incrementb
V2005
V2010a
(ha)
(m3)
(m3)
(m3)
(m3)
760.1
79.0
1177.8
86,195
16,392
334,309
101,832
14,073
348,018
15,638
2319
13,709
29,025
993
26,202
Annual values
Increment
Increment
Extraction
(m3 yr 1)
Extraction
(plot data)
(m3 yr 1)
Extraction
(hh data)c
(m3 yr 1)
Surplus
(plot data)
(m3 yr 1)
(plot data):
Increment
Ratio
5805
199
5240
1603d
647
2263
1316
624
1932
3134
449
2977
0.28
3.26
0.43
The standing stock in 2010 is calculated as the sum of the volumes of live trees and ingrowth.
The increment in the ve-year period is the change in volume of trees alive both in 2005 and 2010, plus the volume of ingrowth.
c
Estimates of wood product extraction (m3) from forests is the sum of (i) households own-reported gures, mean of 2006 (n = 507) and 2009 (n = 558),
and (ii) average annual extraction from 2005 to 2010 for community purposes as reported by FUGs and CAMCs.
d
The recorded extraction from plots was 2671 m3 yr 1. However, approx. 40% of the extraction was from clear-cutting for the establishment of temporary
Maoist cantonments; villagers did not get the products from the clear-cutting and this amount is hence excluded from the analysis. Including this clearcutting would bring the extraction:increment ratio to 0.46.
b
60
High mountains
2005
2010
50
40
30
Standing
stock
(1000 m )
20
10
0
5
Middle hills
4
3
2
1
0
40
Lowlands
30
20
10
0
0
0-1
-20
10
-30
20
-40
30
-50
40
-60
50
-70
60
-80
70
0
-90
-10
80
90
00
>1
S118
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
200
14
12
2005
2010
10
8
150
6
4
2
0
100
50
0
a
ore
Sh
r
he
Ot
a
is
im
ps
ch
no
S
a
t
s
Ca
Lowlands
r
he
Ot
Middle hills
us
Pin
Ts
a
ug
r
he
Ot
High mountains
Figure 2. Changes in standing stock (m3) across species, per site, Nepal, 20052010.
Change
m3ha-1
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
-140
-160
-180
0m
200 m
400 m
600 m
800 m
Figure 3. Overview of permanent sample plot locations (squares), strata and changes in standing stock (m3 ha 1) in the forest of the Middle hills site,
20052010. The households are located south-east of the forest.
ARE FOREST INCOMES SUSTAINABLE? FIREWOOD AND TIMBER EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN COMMUNITY S119
Table 4. Total annual mean household absolute (USD PPPa) and relative income per adult equivalent unit by income source and site, Nepal, mean of 2006
(n = 507) and 2009 (n = 558)
Income source
Lowlands
Middle hills
Sample mean
Rel
Abs
Rel
Abs
Rel
Abs
Rel
Forest income
Firewood
Timber/furniture
Poles/sticks/utensils
Charcoal
Bamboo
Leaf litter/fodder grass
Mushrooms/wild vegetables
Wild fruits/medicinal plants/others
Forestry wage
59.6
22.8
1.5
2.6
0.5
0.1
11.1
0.8
16.1
4.1
3.0
1.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.8
0.2
115.0
74.9
4.9
0.9
0.0
0.2
2.2
0.0
25.0
6.9
4.3
2.8
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.3
314.8
73.6
59.6
20.9
10.1
25.7
43.4
29.9
32.5
19.1
11.3
2.6
2.1
0.8
0.4
0.9
1.6
1.1
1.2
0.7
164.1
52.6
23.3
8.9
3.8
9.3
21.0
11.2
23.9
10.1
6.8
2.2
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.4
Environmental income
163.0
8.2
129.1
4.8
39.6
1.4
111.4
4.6
Farm income
685.6
34.4
830.5
31.2
990
35.6
829.1
34.1
Non-farm income
Remittances
Pensions
Business
Non-farm wage work
Other
1085.7
606.8
163.3
121.8
69.5
124.4
54.5
30.4
8.2
6.1
3.5
6.2
1590.4
497.0
485.9
153.9
4.5
449.1
59.7
18.7
18.2
5.8
0.2
16.9
1435.4
383.0
105.4
597.1
147.2
202.7
51.6
13.8
3.8
21.5
5.3
7.3
1323.3
503.6
212.1
300.6
83.7
223.3
54.5
20.7
8.7
12.4
3.4
9.2
Total income
No. of obs.
1993.9
446
100.0
41.9
2664.9
234
100.0
22.0
2779.7
385
100
36.1
2428.0
1065
100.0
100.0
Abs
High mountains
4. DISCUSSION
While forest income is not a dominant income source to rural households in the study sites, it still makes up 3.011.3% of
total household income and is thus arguably important. This is
particularly so given the generally low levels of household income and the slow national economic growth (average annual
GNI per capita growth of 1.4% from 2002 to 2009; World
Bank., 2011). Furthermore, Baland et al. (2010) found that
in Nepal rising incomes had a negligible eect on household
collection of rewood as had rising costs, e.g., through increased collection time due to decreasing forest quality. It thus
appears likely that forest product use will remain important to
most households in Nepal in the foreseeable future; this is conrmed by the 199596 and 200304 Living Standard Measurement Surveys that showed an increase in the percentage of
households using rewood for cooking from 77% to 84%
(Nepal, Nepal, & Grimsrud, 2010). In our study sites, the
share of rewood collecting households was constant at 84%
in 2006 and 2009. In 2009, more than half (57%) claimed to
use less time on rewood collection than ve years ago.
(a) Sustainability of current harvest levels
Forest level sustainability ndings can be nuanced by looking at three measures of within-forest sustainability: across
species, diameter classes, and spatially (strata). At the forest
level, current harvesting levels are well under the annual increment in the Lowlands and High mountains sites, while in the
Middle hills site current extraction exceeds annual increment
threefold. However, within-forest ndings show a more complex picture. For instance: (i) in the Middle hills site the main
species S. wallichii and C. indica are currently subjected to
unsustainable harvesting levels while other species, typically
S120
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
Table 5. Comparison of actual and potential annual household forest income (USD PPP yr 1) in total and per adult equivalent unit (aeu) under current
(rewood only) and alternative (timber and rewood) implementation of rules for actual annual harvests and sustainable harvest levels
Species
Firewood only
Lowlands
Middle hills
High mountains
Total
Firewood only
Whole forest
Per aeub,c
Whole forest
Per aeub
Whole forest
Per aeub
Whole forest
Per aeub
Shorea
Other
Sub-total
155,884
104,684
260,567
21.2
14.3
35.5
566,464
145,444
711,908
77.2
19.8
97.0
648,347
106,641
754,988
88.3
14.5
102.9
2,551,012
172,450
2,723,461
347.6
23.5
371.1
Castanopsis
Schima
Other
Sub-total
29,945
63,732
5,551
99,228
30.2
64.2
5.6
100.0
67,130
118,722
8,720
194,571
67.6
119.6
8.8
196.1
8,323
11,210
4,820
24,354
8.4
11.3
4.9
24.5
21,526
22,468
7,958
51,952
21.7
22.6
8.0
52.4
Pinus
Tsuga
Other
Sub-total
165,585
6,688
37,702
209,976
127.8
5.2
29.1
162.0
256,593
10,521
52,438
319,552
198.0
8.1
40.5
246.6
321,157
60,376
7,430
388,964
247.8
46.6
5.7
300.1
517,573
96,634
4,914
619,122
399.4
74.6
3.8
477.7
569,771
60.9
1,226,031
131.1
1,168,306
125.0
3,394,536
363.1
Paudel (2010) argued that this would empower local communities. Third, the standard approach to forest management
planning and implementation in Nepal needs to be reconsidered: rather than emphasizing rigid standard conservative
management interventions in community forest operational
plans (Acharya, 2002; Dev & Adhikari, 2007; Yadav, Yadav,
Yadav, & Thapa, 2009) these should take into account spatial
and temporal species-level variations in harvesting possibilities. This would serve to avoid the widely reported (Adhikari
et al., 2007; Gautam, Shivakoti, & Webb, 2004; Pandit & Bevilacqua, 2011; Schweik, Nagendra, & Sinha, 2003; Tachibana
& Adhikari, 2009; Thoms, 2008) underutilization of community forests.
(b) Sustainability of current forest incomes
In the Lowlands and High mountains sites, the wood-based
part of the currently realized household-level forest income is
assessed to be sustainable. Even if there are concerns regarding
within-forest sustainability in each of these forests as discussed
above, current household forest incomes can easily be maintained while addressing these concerns (e.g., by shifting harvest spatially or between diameter classes). In the Middle
hills site, current wood-based forest incomes are clearly not
sustainable if not followed by periods of forest regeneration
(i.e., with lower forest incomes); reducing harvests to sustainable levels would decrease household forest incomes to 25
52% of the current estimate (depending on scenario; Table 5).
In the Lowlands and High mountains sites, it appears that annual household forest incomes can be increased substantially,
up to ten-fold (Table 5).
Approximately 1,652,654 households are currently involved
in community forestry in Nepal (DoF, 2011) and increasing
their forest income could have a nationwide impact on poverty
(e.g., doubling per household forest income would generate an
additional annual income of hundreds of million USD PPP).
The 1993 Forest Act allows communities to commercially sell
the timber from their forests. But a complex mix of factors
interacts to prevent this legally possible implementation of
ARE FOREST INCOMES SUSTAINABLE? FIREWOOD AND TIMBER EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN COMMUNITY S121
inventory that covers such products as eciently and accurately as an inventory emphasizing woody biomass therefore
remains a challenge (Jensen & Meilby, 2012).
(c) Can we trust the ndings?
The two dierent methods used by the present study to estimate annual woody biomass extraction from forests provided
comparable results (Table 3), with inventory estimates being 3
to 22% higher than household-derived estimates. This is likely
caused by lack of recall of all products harvested as well as
underreporting as not all household product collection is in
accordance with local rules; non-reported harvesting by outsiders may also play a role, e.g., during our eld work the
army was observed cutting trees in the High mountains site,
while the Maoist army (Table 3, footnote) was seen harvesting
forest products in the Lowlands site.
The most widely studied forest product in Nepal is rewood;
we nd the expected pattern of decreasing per capita rewood
extraction from forests, and increasing extraction from nonforest environmental resources, from high to low altitude
(Bhatt & Sachan, 2004) and extracted per capita freshwood
rewood quantities are comparable to previously reported
estimates (Amacher, Hyde, & Kanel, 1999; Bajracharya,
1983; Fox, 1984, 1993; Metz, 1994). 8 In general, the plot-derived harvest volume is slightly underestimated as increment
after registration in 2005 is not counted (it is not known in
what year trees were harvested). By contrast, the increment
represented by ingrowth is overestimated slightly as the volume of ingrowth trees was not zero in 2005. The total volume
error is minor as these trees are very small and thus have low
volume. Regarding the levels of forest incomes, these are lower
(311% of total household income) than reported in many
other countries (1539% mentioned in the Introduction). Previous studies from Nepal have, however, also reported low
average forest income shares of 58% (Adhikari, 2005), 4
23% (Chhetri, 2005) and 622% (Aryal & Angelsen, 2007).
The range reported in this paper is, while at the lower boundary, comparable with existing estimates.
5. CONCLUSION
This paper has focused on contributing to answering the key
question: are household-level forest incomes in developing
countries sustainable? It has done so using biophysical data
from repeated measurements in 240 permanent sample plots
located in three sites, one in each of the main physiographic
zones of Nepal, and income data from 507 households in
2006 and 558 households in 2009, using the forests in which
the plots are located, collected through a repeated structured
household survey.
Using a simple income sustainability criterion based on the
proportion of annual increment harvested (80%) we found
that spatial and temporal issues should be explicitly considered
in the sustainability analysis. For instance: (i) it may be that
forest income and overall extraction level at a particular site
is deemed sustainable, but that a certain species or a certain
location within the site is being unsustainably harvested, or
(ii) that current forest incomes are unsustainable but only because the local community at the observed points in time is
capitalizing on its previously exercised forest protection. There
is scope for further operationalizing the concept of forest income sustainability to include explicit ecological and social
dimensions of forest utilization. Household-level forest incomes were sustainable at two of the three sites (unsustainable
S122
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
market access and the number of households. The eect on income would also be positive in overharvested sites in the sense
that the additional income from timber sales would lessen the
impact of changing to sustainable harvest levels.
The present ndings indicate that introducing exibility in
local forest management, through allowing commercial harvest and sale of timber, could be a rare winwin opportunity
to simultaneously improve sustainable rural livelihoods and
forest conservation. This would not require any legislative
changes but a complex mix of cultural and economic factors,
e.g., traditional ocial emphasis on forest conservation outcomes rather than income-generating opportunities, would
need to be explicitly addressed.
NOTES
1. As a component of forest income is derived from returns to skilled
labor, this creates some bias when comparing income across sectors.
However, given the diculties in estimating labor costs (and normal
prots, required to use the rent income measure) and the relatively minor
role of forest income derived from processed products and wages, we nd
use of value added income the only realistic solution.
2. In the Lowlands and Middle hills sites, the investigated forests are
managed under the community forestry programme (Acharya, 2002)
regulated by the 1993 Forestry Act and the 1995 Forest Regulations. The
High mountains site is located in the Annapurna Conservation Area,
established under the 1972 National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act
and subject to the 1996 Conservation Area Management Regulations. For
a discussion of the dierences between the community forestry and
conservation area management models, see Baral and Stern (2011).
3. In the coee-house design sample plots are distributed such that for
each additional plot the minimum distance to other, already established
plots is maximized. In our application of the design the location of the rst
plot is random but as the number of plots already established increases the
location of additional plots becomes increasingly constrained. The name
of the design is inspired by the way that arriving customers in certain
coee houses choose their table.
4. One headload of rewood was estimated at 43.6 7.3 kg (n = 24).
The bulk of rewood is harvested individually by cutting trees and
immediately splitting the wood in the forest, before transporting to the
village (the Lowlands and High mountains sites) or by an entrepreneur
cutting and stacking piles (Middle hills site). Conversion of rewood
weight to volume used basic densities (dry weight per fresh volume) for
Schima wallichii, 0.685 g/cm3 (Middle hills), Pinus wallichiana, 0.400 g/cm3
REFERENCES
Abbott, J. I. O., & Homewood, K. (1999). A history of change: Causes of
miombo woodland decline in a protected area in Malawi. Journal of
Applied Ecology, 36(3), 422433.
Acharya, K. P. (2002). Twenty-four years of community forestry in Nepal.
International Forestry Review, 4(2), 149156.
Adhikari, B. (2005). Poverty, property rights and collective action:
Understanding the distributive aspects of common property resource
management. Environment and Development Economics, 10(1), 731.
Adhikari, B., Falco, S. D., & Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: Evidence from common property forest
management in Nepal. Ecological Economics, 48(2), 245257.
Adhikari, B., Williams, F., & Lovett, J. C. (2007). Local benets from
community forests in the middle hills of Nepal. Forest Policy and
Economics, 9(5), 464478.
Amacher, G. S., Hyde, W. F., & Kanel, K. R. (1999). Nepali fuelwood
production and consumption: Regional and household distinctions,
ARE FOREST INCOMES SUSTAINABLE? FIREWOOD AND TIMBER EXTRACTION AND PRODUCTIVITY IN COMMUNITY S123
Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., et al.
(2008). Household livelihood strategies and forest dependence in the
highlands of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Agricultural Systems, 98(2),
147155.
Babulo, B., Muys, B., Nega, F., Tollens, E., Nyssen, J., Deckers, J., et al.
(2009). The economic contribution of forest resource use to rural
livelihoods in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics,
11(2), 123131.
Bajracharya, D. (1983). Fuel, food or forest? Dilemmas in a Nepali village.
World Development, 11(12), 10571074.
Bajracharya, S. B., Furley, P. A., & Newton, A. C. (2005). Eectiveness of
community involvement in delivering conservation benets to the
Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Environmental Conservation,
32(3), 239247.
Baland, J.-M., Bardhan, P., Das, S., Mookherjee, D., & Sarkar, R. (2010).
The environmental impact of poverty: Evidence from rewood
collection in rural Nepal. Economic Development and Cultural Change,
59(1), 2361.
Baral, N., & Stern, M. J. (2011). A comparative study of two communitybased conservation models in Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation,
20(11), 24072426.
Barbier, E. B. (2010). Poverty, development, and environment. Environment and Development Economics, 15(6), 635660.
Bhatt, B. P., & Sachan, M. S. (2004). Firewood consumption along an
altitudinal gradient in mountain villages in Nepal. Biomass and
Bioenergy, 27(1), 6975.
Bolton, G. H., & McClaran, M. P. (2008). Evaluating sustainability of
Symplocos ramosissima harvest for herder huts: A case study near an
upper elevation village in Nepal. Mountain Research and Development,
28(34), 248254.
Bufum, B., Gratzer, G., & Tenzin, Y. (2008). The sustainability of
selection cutting in a late successional broadleaved community forest in
Bhutan. Forest Ecology and Management, 256(12), 20842091.
Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the povertyenvironment
relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World
Development, 28(11), 19792003.
Cavendish, W. (2002). Quantitative methods for estimating the economic
value of resource use to rural households. In B. M. Campbell, & M. K.
Luckert (Eds.), Uncovering the hidden harvest: Valuation methods for
woodland and forest resources (pp. 1766). London: Earthscan.
Chen, S., & Ravallion, M. (2007). Absolute poverty measures for the
developing world, 19812004. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Science, 104(43), 1675716762.
Chettri, N., Sharma, E., Deb, D. C., & Sundriyal, R. C. (2002). Impact of
rewood extraction on tree structure, regeneration and woody biomass
productivity in a trekking corridor of the Sikkim Himalaya. Mountain
Research and Development, 22(2), 150158.
Chhetri, B. B. K. (2005). Income distribution disparity and inequality
measure: The case of community forests in Kaski, Nepal. IOF
Discussion Paper 5, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara.
Chomitz, K. M. (2007). At loggerheads?: Agricultural expansion, poverty
reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. Washington, DC:
World Bank.
Christensen, M., & Heilmann-Clausen, J. (2009). Forest biodiversity
gradients and the human impact in Annapurna Conservation Area,
Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation, 18(8), 22052221.
Christensen, M., Rayamajhi, S., & Meilby, H. (2009). Balancing fuelwood
and biodiversity concerns in rural Nepal. Ecological Modelling, 220(4),
522532.
Coleman, E. A. (2009). Institutional factors aecting biophysical outcomes in forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28(1), 122146.
Danielsen, F., Burgess, N., Funder, M., Blomley, T., Brashares, J., Akida,
A., et al. (2010). Taking stock of nature in species-rich but economically poor areas: An emerging discipline of locally based monitoring.
In A. Lawrence (Ed.), Taking stock of nature (pp. 88112). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, H. C., & Philip, M. S. (1998). Tropical moist forest silviculture
and management. Wallingford: CAB International.
Dayal, V. (2006). A microeconometric analysis of household extraction of
forest biomass goods in Ranthambhore National Park, India. Journal
of Forest Economics, 12(2), 145163.
Dev, O. M., & Adhikari, J. (2007). Community forestry in the Nepal hills:
Practices and livelihood impacts. In O. Springate-Baginski, & P. Blaikie
(Eds.), Forests, people and power (pp. 142176). London: Earthscan.
S124
WORLD DEVELOPMENT
ScienceDirect