Next Article in Journal
Species-Area Relationship and Its Scale-Dependent Effects in Natural Forests of North Eastern China
Next Article in Special Issue
Building a Social Discount Rate to be Applied in US Afforestation Project Appraisal
Previous Article in Journal
Elevated CO2 Increases Root Mass and Leaf Nitrogen Resorption in Red Maple (Acer rubrum L.)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Socioeconomic Aspects of the Forests in Portugal: Recent Evolution and Perspectives of Sustainability of the Resource
Open AccessArticle

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

Centre for Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Southern Queensland, Queensland 4350, Australia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2019, 10(5), 421;
Received: 4 May 2019 / Revised: 12 May 2019 / Accepted: 14 May 2019 / Published: 15 May 2019
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: forests; valuation; community-based forest management forests; valuation; community-based forest management
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Acharya, R.P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Cockfield, G. 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 2019, 10, 421.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

Back to TopTop