Next Article in Journal
Advancing Multi-Scale Geographic Environmental Monitoring: A Synthesis of Cutting-Edge Research and Scalable Solutions
Previous Article in Journal
Collaborative Currents: The Promise of Conflict Resolution in Public Acceptance of Utility-Scale Renewable Energy Projects
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Land
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/land14051057
land-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impacts of Conservation-Led Resettlements in Nepal: Ecological Perspectives

by
Hari Prasad Pandey
1,2,
Armando Apan
1,3 and
Tek Narayan Maraseni
1,4,*
1
Institute of Life Sciences and the Environment, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
2
Department of Forests and Soil Conservation, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
3
Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101, Philippines
4
Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Land 2025, 14(5), 1057; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051057
Submission received: 21 April 2025 / Revised: 10 May 2025 / Accepted: 12 May 2025 / Published: 13 May 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The widespread practice of deliberate human displacement for biodiversity conservation remains a contentious issue in the Anthropocene era. This study explores the ecological impacts of conservation-led resettlement (ER) in Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL), a biodiverse region under significant conservation and development pressures. Although ER aims to enhance ecological integrity, the role of displacement in conservation has been understudied. Using case studies from the TAL, we examined ecological indicators in vacated settlement areas within parks and newly resettled sites outside protected zones. Data were collected through a review of secondary literature, 240 household interviews, 5 focus group discussions, 25 key informant interviews, and multiple field visits across resettlement sites. Between 1973 and 2019, TAL gained 922.52 sq. km of core protected areas (displacing over 4800 households) and dispossessed communities from 2120.12 sq. km of buffer zones, significantly expanding protected areas and upgrading conservation standards from IUCN category IV to II. This contributed to the recovery of key species such as tigers, rhinos, and elephants. However, resettlements, often located along critical biological corridors and buffer zones, led to habitat fragmentation, endangering the gene pool flow and creating isolated habitats. Results show that, in general, most ecosystem and environmental variables were perceived significantly differently (p < 0.05) among resettled communities in the study area. The cultural and land-based attachments of displaced communities were overlooked. These findings highlight the risks of short-term resettlement planning, which can exacerbate pressures on critical corridors, escalate human–wildlife conflicts, and provide a clear indication of the trade-off between conservation benefits and social costs.

1. Introduction

The complex relationship between humans and nature has deep historical roots. However, formal global efforts to conserve biodiversity began in the latter half of the 19th century, marked by the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in the United States in 1872 [1,2]. This step was primarily founded on the theory of Island Biogeography [3,4] and later built up and interconnected with the Socio-Ecological Systems theory [5,6], Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation [7,8,9], Power Theory [10], and Politics in Third World [11]. Since then, the global expansion of protected areas (PAs) has largely followed the Yellowstone model, which emphasizes biodiversity protection through exclusionary practices [12,13,14]. As of 2023, more than 286,200 terrestrial and marine PAs have been designated worldwide [15]. These areas typically adopt exclusion-based approaches—removing or prohibiting human settlements within park boundaries. While some community-based stewardship models have emerged [16,17,18], the dominant conservation paradigm has often led to the displacement of long-established communities [12,19]. This process of relocating people from ancestral lands to facilitate biodiversity conservation is commonly referred to as Ecological Resettlement (ER) or Conservation-led Relocation (CR). Understanding the history, practices, and ecological implications of ER is essential for shaping future conservation strategies that balance human welfare with ecological sustainability and help advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [20,21] and beyond.
The ecological and environmental dimensions of ecological resettlement (ER) are often presumed to benefit wildlife and enhance ecosystem integrity. Although some studies report changes in human–park interactions, levels of conflict, water regimes, or overall ecosystem functioning [22,23,24], such findings remain limited. For instance, Platt et al. (2016) observed land cover improvements in evacuated areas and degradation in resettled sites [25]. While ER is widely promoted to strengthen ecological integrity and support biodiversity, few studies have directly examined its ecological outcomes [24,26]. Some research presents a balanced perspective, addressing both human and ecological concerns [27,28,29]. However, existing research rarely investigates how ER affects the condition, progression, or degradation of ecosystems, nor does it sufficiently recognize the contributions or sacrifices made by displaced communities in the name of conservation [19]. Yet, no study has explicitly assessed changes in ecological indicators, ecosystem integrity, or the comparative status of resettled and vacated areas before and after ER. A comprehensive ecological assessment of both resettled and evacuated sites remains a significant gap in the current literature [19].
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has set a new target to protect at least 30% of terrestrial and marine areas by 2030—an increase from the current 17% for land and 10% for oceans [30,31]. To meet these goals, ecological resettlement (ER) is likely to become more prevalent, supported by national and subnational policy instruments. On the one hand, undisturbed ecosystems are rapidly vanishing [32,33]; on the other, governments—especially in developing countries—face challenges in providing infrastructure for dispersed populations with limited resources [34,35]. This tension often leads to land-use changes that threaten biodiversity, particularly in terrestrial ecosystems, and increase pressure on core habitats within biodiversity hotspots. In this context, it is essential to assess the role of ER in maintaining biodiversity integrity—to justify its future application, if needed, or to improve past ER approaches to better serve both societal welfare and ecological sustainability.
Global studies show that past resettlement efforts have primarily occurred in two distinct areas: within or near buffer zones and biological corridors, and in locations far removed from core habitats where megafauna are rarely present. Areas within biological corridors and buffer zones serve dual roles—facilitating gene flow and ecological integrity while also supporting local livelihoods [36]. Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) provides notable examples of this balance [37]. However, these regions remain understudied, particularly through the lens of environmental justice [38,39], in terms of how conservation-driven resettlement affects ecological indicators [40,41]. This study aims to address this gap by comparing the experiences of resettled communities located within or near corridors and buffer zones with ecological outcomes reported in secondary sources.
In this context, our study endeavors to assess the ecological and environmental impacts of ecological resettlement (ER), including conservation-led resettlement. Specifically, the following was conducted: (1) evaluation of key achievements in biodiversity indicators within evacuated core areas; (2) assess ecological changes in resettlement sites, particularly within critical biological corridors; and (3) document perceived changes in ecological indicators in resettled areas, from the time of relocation to the present, as experienced by the resettled communities. Focusing on Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL), this study offers site-specific insights to inform future decision making. By providing ground-level evidence, the research supports the development of sustainable and socially responsible resettlement strategies that align with conservation goals while addressing the needs of affected communities. Given the global recognition of Nepal’s conservation model, these findings offer valuable lessons for both Nepal and other countries striving to balance ecological sustainability with human well-being.

Theoretical Framework

Various theories and frameworks apply to conservation and society. Herein, we have discussed those most relevant to our study, which differ from existing frameworks in the field. For example, the Island Biogeography Theory [3,4], originally developed to explain species richness on islands, shows that smaller and more isolated habitats support fewer species due to limited resources and migration. In the context of conservation-led displacement, this theory highlights that displacing communities and fragmenting landscapes (e.g., through roads or human exclusion zones) can create “island-like” habitats. This isolation can reduce biodiversity by limiting species movement and gene flow, ultimately undermining long-term conservation goals.
Ostrom’s Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) Theory [5,6] emphasizes the interdependence between people and natural ecosystems, highlighting how communities can sustainably manage common resources through collective action, local knowledge, and adaptive governance. In the context of conservation-led displacement, SES theory suggests that forcibly removing communities from protected areas can disrupt traditional resource governance systems, weaken social cohesion, and reduce local stewardship. Instead of enhancing conservation, displacement may lead to ecological degradation and social conflict if local actors are excluded from decision making. Ostrom’s framework supports inclusive, participatory approaches that recognize the role of local communities in conserving biodiversity while securing their rights and livelihoods.
Similarly, Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation Theories [7,8,9] examine how power, politics, and social inequality shape environmental policies and outcomes. In the context of conservation-led displacement, it highlights how conservation efforts can marginalize local communities, often prioritizing ecological goals over social justice. This approach can lead to conflicts, loss of livelihoods, and exclusion from decision making, undermining both community well-being and long-term conservation success.
Moreover, the Power Theory [10] in the context of conservation-led displacement, explores how authority and influence are used to control land, resources, and decision making. It reveals how conservation initiatives can reinforce unequal power dynamics, where state or elite actors impose restrictions on local communities, often without their consent, leading to displacement and social injustice. Such powers are more vivid in the developing world. Politics, policies, and stakeholders’ constellation in the global south [11,42] concerning conservation-led displacement often reflects unequal power dynamics, where state and international agendas dominate over local voices. Limited stakeholder engagement, weak governance, and top-down policies can marginalize indigenous and rural communities, making inclusive, locally grounded participation essential for equitable and effective conservation outcomes.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Area

To examine the ecological impact, we considered all the protected areas—Parsa NP, Chitwan NP, Banke NP, Bardia NP, Krishnasar CA, and Suklaphanta NP across the TAL area of Nepal (Figure 1). For the testament of the ecological indicators in the resettled area just after and at present, we focused on all resettlement sites within Chitwan and Parsa National Parks, located in Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL). Formerly inhabited by forest-dependent, impoverished, and indigenous communities, these parks were central to local livelihoods deeply rooted in natural resource use [43,44]. Resettlement disrupted these connections, heightening community vulnerability and displacing traditional practices [13]. Both parks are biodiversity strongholds—home to iconic species like tigers, one-horned rhinos, and Asiatic elephants—and protect diverse ecosystems [44]. Chitwan, a UNESCO World Heritage Site since 1984, and adjacent Parsa create an ecologically connected forest landscape. Their buffer zones also preserve local cultural heritage, highlighting the intertwined relationship between people and nature [37].
Given their long history of conservation-led resettlement [42,45], these parks provide a critical case study for examining ecological impacts in resettlement areas and their surroundings. Lessons from this context can inform global strategies aimed at reconciling human well-being with conservation objectives.

2.2. Sampling Design

For the collection of primary data and to examine the ecological situation of resettled sites in the past and at present, we randomly chose the resettled households for semi-structured questionnaire interviews. From this process, Chitwan and Parsa National Parks were selected among Nepal’s TAL protected areas due to their ecological, social, and economic relevance at local to international levels. These parks face growing pressure from infrastructure development and industrial expansion and host a high concentration of forest-dependent indigenous communities, many of whom were displaced and disconnected from traditional resources, often leading to tensions with conservation efforts focused on key species like tigers and rhinos [44]. To ensure comprehensive coverage, all five resettled villages within these two parks were included (see Table 1). Within each, households were randomly selected for survey participation. If any household was unavailable or declined to participate, replacements were randomly chosen to maintain a minimum 20% sampling intensity and reduce bias.

2.3. Data Collection

Ethical clearance for this study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Southern Queensland, Australia (Ethics Application ETH2023-0568 HREC). Additional permissions were secured from Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Environment and the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, in alignment with national protocols. Household data for relocated families were obtained from the offices of Chitwan and Parsa National Parks. Participants were informed about the study’s voluntary nature, confidentiality, right to withdraw, and identity protection, following the ethical standards of the researchers’ affiliated institutions.
Primary data were gathered using three core methods: 240 semi-structured questionnaire interviews (SSQI), 5 focus group discussions (FGDs), and 25 key informant interviews (KIIs). These were supplemented with field observations, informal and formal conversations, transect walks, and participation in conservation-related meetings and workshops. For SSQIs, a minimum 20% sampling intensity was applied—consistent with best practices in social research [46]—especially relevant for relatively homogeneous populations like those involved in ecological resettlement.
To assess perceived ecological changes among resettled communities in the study sites, a household questionnaire incorporated several theories to guide this. The Island Biogeography Theory guided the status of habitat fragmentation, prompting questions on species abundance and ecosystem connectivity. Ostrom’s SES Theory signified to include local resource management, probing impacts on governance and stewardship in the questionnaire. Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation theories indicated marginalized communities, asking about livelihood changes and power dynamics to explore the data in a disintegrated way concerning various social backgrounds of the resettled communities. Power Theory is directed to include the criteria of fairness in resettlement, local participation, and authority influence. Finally, the Politics and Stakeholder Engagement theory envisioned to incorporate the questions regarding the inclusion of local voices in conservation decision making, ensuring an equitable process.
Such household questionnaires included primarily semi-structured questions with predefined options, supplemented by a few open-ended items to capture detailed responses. Designed to align with the study’s objectives, the questionnaire focused on six key ecological and environmental themes: forest structure and composition, wildlife presence and human interaction, grassland and river dynamics, water sources, forest fires, and pollution. On top of closed-ended responses, open-ended responses were used to gather in-depth information about changes and impacts on the ecological and environmental factors in the resettlement’s surroundings.
Alongside the SSQIs, focus group discussions (FGDs) were held at each study site (n = 5) with local and indigenous communities to gather collective perspectives on ecological resettlement (ER). Additionally, at least five key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted in each national park (n = 25) to enrich and cross-validate household-level data. FGDs specifically targeted resettled groups, taking into account diverse identities within communities, such as ethnic and indigenous groups, women’s associations, occupational groups, and different age categories. KIIs involved a broad range of stakeholders, including park and forest officials, civil society members, community leaders, elected representatives, and members of grassroots organizations across the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL). Given their formal roles and responsibilities in conservation governance—as outlined by Nepal’s policy framework [47] and supported by scholarly literature [17,48,49]—these individuals were identified as key informants. Insights from FGDs and KIIs were integrated into narrative accounts and analysis to support and contextualize findings from household surveys and secondary sources.

2.4. Data Analysis

We have accounted for changes in ecological indicators, such as the new declaration and expansion of protected areas in terms of size and number, upgrading of protected areas (e.g., from wildlife reserve—IUCN category IV to national parks—IUCN category II), the declaration of buffer zones, and the enforcement of the same laws as in core areas. We also considered changes in key biodiversity variables, including the population dynamics of mega-mammals (tigers, rhinos, elephants, bison, dolphins, etc.), birds, and reptiles, which are regularly monitored and comparable. These qualitative data, collected from secondary sources, were presented in tabular format and discussed as appropriate.
Similarly, questionnaire interview data (e.g., perception change) were presented in bar graphs and tested using Chi-square tests to determine whether perceptions of ecological indicators in their vicinity significantly differed. The variables accounted for in the perception measurement regarding ecological indicators included forest structure and composition, wildlife presence and human interaction, grassland and river dynamics, water sources, forest fires, and pollution. All tests were performed using R programming and RStudio version 4.3.1 with various libraries, such as agricolae, multicom, lm, glm, lme, survival, vegan, trend, and ggplot2, among others [50]. The visual presentation of the observed relationships was kept simple using bar graphs and pie charts for ease of interpretation and communication. These tests and visualizations were also performed in MS Excel.

3. Results

3.1. Actual Eco-Environmental Changes Before and After the Resettlement from the NATIONAL Parks of TAL, Nepal

Between 1974 and 2019, six protected areas in Nepal underwent resettlement-based expansions, significantly contributing to biodiversity conservation (Table 2). Parsa National Park, Bardia National Park, and Suklaphanta National Park were upgraded from wildlife reserves to national parks, resulting in notable increases in protected area size—Bardia alone gained 620 sq. km, the largest among them. These expansions improved habitats for key species such as tigers, elephants, rhinos, and gaurs. Chitwan, along with Parsa, Banke, Bardia, and Suklaphanta, also received Conservation Assured Tiger Standards (CATS) certification. Community displacement played a critical role in these expansions, as all national parks (NPs) across the Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) displaced thousands through buffer zone declarations or the establishment of conservation areas (e.g., Krishnasar Conservation Area), often by applying laws similar to those enforced in core national park zones.
Banke and Krishnasar were newly established parks, emphasizing conservation for specific species like the four-horned antelope and blackbuck. Although Banke had minimal net area gain (0.5 sq. km), it became an important habitat for large mammals and birds. Krishnasar Conservation Area emerged from scratch and now supports over 170 blackbucks. The data highlights the effectiveness of community-involved resettlement in the buffer zones programs in expanding and upgrading protected areas, albeit with ecological and social trade-offs (Table 2).

3.2. Identified Biological Corridors and Their Significance in the Terai Arc Landscape

Between 2015 and 2020, Nepal’s ten ecological corridors spanning over 2557 sq. km—connecting major national parks and transboundary conservation areas—witnessed a net forest cover gain of 3288 hectares. These corridors are crucial for the movement and survival of key wildlife species such as tigers, elephants, leopards, and gharials. Habitats range from Sal (Shorea robusta) and mixed hardwood forests to riverine floodplains and grasslands. Notably, the Kamdi and Basanta corridors recorded the highest forest gains (1191 ha and 697 ha, respectively), while the Karnali corridor saw a loss of 263 ha (Table 3). These areas also serve as lifelines for biodiversity-rich rivers such as the Rapti, Karnali, and Mohana, and connecting transboundary protected areas to India, and within Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL).
Despite their ecological importance, the corridors face mounting challenges, including overgrazing, poaching, deforestation, fuelwood collection, sand mining, and the expansion of linear infrastructure like highways, railways, and irrigation canals. Climate change (CC) compounds these threats, especially in corridors like Kamdi and Karnali, which are noted as highly vulnerable. Transboundary corridors such as Brahmadev and Khata highlight the need for coordinated conservation between Nepal and India. Local communities—including indigenous groups and community forest user groups (CFUGs)—are both beneficiaries and stewards of these landscapes, underscoring the need for integrated, participatory management to sustain connectivity and resilience (Table 3).

3.3. Ecosystem and Environment Changes as Perceived by the People’s Those Evacuated from National Parks Across Study Areas

Figure 2 illustrates the community’s perception of environmental changes immediately after resettlement, highlighting a substantial perceived increase in forest cover, forest composition, and wildlife abundance. However, there were also notable increases in human–wildlife conflicts and pollution reported shortly after resettlement. Despite some indifference in categories like grassland and upland areas or bushfires, decreases were less commonly perceived, suggesting initial optimism or rapid environmental responses following displacement. There were notable shifts in community perceptions from the period just after resettlement to now. Initially, high percentages of people perceived decreases in forest cover (79%), forest composition (68%), wildlife abundance (62%), and grassland/upland areas (75%). However, perceptions of increases in pollution (54%), bush fires (41%), and wildlife abundance (43%) were also prominent, suggesting both environmental degradation and some noticeable ecological activity. Indifference was notably high for bush fires (78%) and moderate for forest composition (36%) and grassland/upland areas (38%).
In contrast, the right graph (b), which reflects the current perceptions, shows a shift in community views. Current perceptions reflect a growing sense of stability or improvement, with significant increases perceived in bushfires (62%), pollution (61%), and human–wildlife conflicts (54%). Meanwhile, indifference now dominates categories such as forest cover (66%), forest composition (73%), and water sources (73%), indicating a normalization of environmental conditions over time. There is a sharp decline in perceived decreases, especially for pollution (from 35% to 7%) and water sources (from 62% to 15%), showing a possibly more hopeful or adapted outlook among resettled communities. While forest cover and wildlife abundance are still seen to have increased, the perception of decreases in forest composition, water sources, and grasslands has grown. Indifference has also risen in most categories, potentially indicating normalization or adaptation over time.
Our Chi-square test results show that, in general, most ecosystem and environmental variables were perceived significantly differently (p < 0.05) among resettled communities in the study area (Table 4). Specifically, except for perceived changes in water sources immediately after resettlement and wildlife abundance at present (2024), all other variables showed statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in perceptions—whether they had increased, decreased, or remained unchanged—both immediately after resettlement and at present. In other words, all respondents reported similar perceptions regarding water sources after resettlement and wildlife abundance in 2024.
Notably, the pollution is now perceived to have increased the most, and human–wildlife conflicts remain a major concern, reflecting enduring socio-environmental challenges in the resettlement areas.

4. Discussions

In recent decades, people have been displaced primarily for biodiversity conservation, and this practice continues globally. Between 1974 and 2019, Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) area expanded six protected areas through community resettlement, adding thousands of square kilometers to core conservation zones—most notably a 620 sq. km gain in Bardia National Park. These expansions significantly enhanced habitats for tigers, rhinos, elephants, and other key species, with several parks earning global recognition like Ramsar and conserving assured tigers’ standards (CATS). Biological corridors spanning 2557 sq. km gained over 3288 hectares in forest cover between 2015 and 2020, strengthening wildlife connectivity across the TAL. Despite challenges like poaching, infrastructure, and climate threats, these corridors remain lifelines for biodiversity. Community perceptions post-resettlement initially showed optimism with improved forest cover and wildlife, but over time shifted to concerns about rising bushfires, pollution, and human–wildlife conflict. Still, the long-term ecological gains—from habitat recovery to species resurgence—demonstrate the conservation value of resettlement when paired with participatory, adaptive management [19,49]. In summary, in most cases reported globally, including in Nepal, there is a trade-off between protection benefits and social costs, and a challenge persists in balancing these for a win–win scenario.

4.1. Ecological Significance of Resettlement

The expansion and upgrading of protected areas (PAs) in Nepal, such as Parsa, Chitwan, and Bardia National Parks, highlight significant policy implications for harmonizing biodiversity conservation with human displacement. Resettlement programs have played a pivotal role in enabling the expansion of core areas and buffer zones, contributing to improved ecological outcomes [28], such as increased populations of flagship species like tigers, elephants, and rhinos. For instance, the transformation of the Parsa Wildlife Reserve into a National Park and its subsequent habitats enhancement have supported thriving populations of endangered species [12,50]. Similarly, Chitwan National Park’s integration of Ramsar wetlands and successful conservation of over 694 one-horned rhinos exemplifies how resettlement can create space for both ecosystem restoration and global biodiversity commitments [51,52]. These outcomes suggest the need for future conservation policies to prioritize strategic resettlement planning alongside habitat protection, ensuring long-term ecological resilience.
Furthermore, newly established PAs such as Banke National Park and the Krishnasar Conservation Area demonstrate the value of incorporating community co-management models and expanding conservation beyond traditional park boundaries [53,54]. Banke has emerged as a critical extension for mega carnivores and herbivores, contributing to landscape-scale tiger conservation [43], while Krishnasar has revived the blackbuck population through a participatory governance model [55,56]. These cases underscore that equitable resettlement and benefit-sharing mechanisms—when paired with ecological planning—can produce win-win outcomes for communities and biodiversity conservation [12,42]. Therefore, policy frameworks should continue to support participatory approaches [57], provide adequate compensation and livelihood alternatives for displaced households, ensure environmental justice in conservation [19,38], and prioritize ecological corridors and buffer zones as key tools for climate adaptation and biodiversity protection [58,59].
The expansion of Chitwan National Park (CNP) and Parsa National Park (PNP) in Nepal involved relocating communities to enhance ecological conservation. CNP, a UNESCO World Heritage site, grew from 932 to 952.63 km2 by incorporating buffer zones, supporting species like the one-horned rhinoceros and Bengal tiger. PNP, upgraded from a wildlife reserve in 2017, expanded from 499 to 627.39 km2, largely due to the integration of former settlement areas and adjacent forests. This created unfragmented corridors linking CNP to the Valmiki Tiger Reserve in India. The resettlements reduced habitat degradation, poaching, and human–wildlife conflict, enabling wildlife populations to rebound [57,60]. Between 2009 and 2022, tiger numbers rose from 120 to 128 in CNP and from 4 to 41 in PNP, alongside improved forest cover and ecosystem resilience [32,50]. Despite socio-economic challenges for displaced communities, the ecological benefits—such as enhanced wildlife connectivity, reforestation, and conservation of keystone species—underscore the long-term success of these efforts [19,58]. However, the lack of recognition for those displaced from their original residences—along with their exclusion from conservation benefits and decision-making processes related to protected area planning and benefit-sharing—undermines the sacrifices made by these communities [13,61]. This neglect may foster antagonistic sentiments toward conservation and reflect poorly on both the government and conservationists, casting a shadow over conservation achievements.

4.2. Pressure on the Biological Corridors and Important Biodiversity Hotspot Outside Protected Areas

Balancing human needs and biodiversity conservation across critical biological corridors and biodiversity hotspots outside national parks in Nepal requires a multifaceted, place-based policy approach. These corridors—spanning over 2500 sq. km with substantial forest coverage—connect key protected areas such as Shuklaphanta, Bardia, Banke, Chitwan, and Indian wildlife sanctuaries. Despite their ecological importance, they face mounting threats from overgrazing, infrastructure expansion, poaching, forest fires, and unsustainable resource extraction [37,62]. The forest cover change data (2015–2020) reveals both forest loss and gains, with corridors like Kamdi (+1191 ha) and Basanta (+697 ha) showing restoration potential, while Karnali (−263 ha) indicates urgent degradation. Policies should prioritize landscape-scale conservation that recognizes transboundary and climate-resilient functions, particularly for corridors like Brahmadev and Khata [44]. This involves coordinated planning between local governments, community forest groups (CFUGs), and cross-border stakeholders to manage ecological integrity alongside rural livelihoods.
Human dimensions—ranging from indigenous fisher communities in Karnali to dense populations in Lamahi—underscore the need for inclusive conservation strategies that address socio-economic dependencies on natural resources. Integrating sustainable forest management, alternative livelihoods, and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction will reduce reliance on unsustainable practices such as sand mining and fuelwood collection [63,64]. Investments in green infrastructure (e.g., wildlife crossings and canal fencing), enforcement against illegal encroachment, and awareness programs can mitigate the impacts of roads and railways dissecting wildlife habitats [65,66]. Given the functional use of these corridors by flagship species like tigers, elephants, and gharials, corridor-specific conservation and restoration policies are vital [17,37]. These must be embedded in national land-use planning frameworks, with adaptive mechanisms to respond to the compounding pressures of climate change and development.
While ecological integrity has improved significantly within the boundaries of protected areas (PAs) in Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL)—owing to reduced human pressure following ecological resettlement (ER)—the resettlement sites themselves, often positioned along critical biological and transboundary corridors, have faced substantial ecological degradation [58,67]. These corridors, which are essential for maintaining gene flow and species connectivity between protected habitats, have increasingly become fragmented due to intensified human settlement, agricultural expansion, and infrastructure development in resettlement zones [37,42,68]. This fragmentation threatens the ecological functionality of the entire TAL network, potentially isolating core PAs and turning them into ecological “islands” habitats disconnected from one another, thereby impeding wildlife movement and dispersal [3,42].
A case in point is the Barandabhar Biological Corridor, a critical linkage between Chitwan National Park and the Mahabharat foothills, which has experienced increasing levels of encroachment, habitat conversion, and resource extraction following the relocation of communities from the Padampur area inside Chitwan National Park. Although the relocation aimed to reduce anthropogenic pressure within the core zone of the park, the unintended consequence has been the degradation of the surrounding corridor landscape. The ecological value of such corridors lies in their ability to facilitate the movement of wide-ranging and migratory species such as tigers, elephants, and rhinos, yet the growing human footprint in these areas now threatens that very function. As these corridors are vital lifelines for sustaining the genetic diversity and long-term viability of wildlife populations across fragmented habitats [65,68], their degradation undermines the overarching goals of conservation-driven resettlement [12,19]. This example underscores the importance of integrating long-term ecological planning and land-use management in and around resettlement areas to ensure that conservation gains within parks are not offset by ecological losses in surrounding landscapes. Exploring these displacement impacts in more detail could be a focus of future research in the field.
In gist, in Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL), the trade-off between protection benefits and social costs is evident. The creation and expansion of protected areas, such as Chitwan and Parsa National Parks, have contributed significantly to the conservation of flagship species like tigers, rhinos, and elephants. However, these efforts often result in the displacement of local communities, disrupting their livelihoods and cultural ties to the land. For example, over 4800 households were displaced during the establishment of core protected areas. While biodiversity flourished within these areas, resettled communities faced reduced access to resources, leading to increased human–wildlife conflict and social strain.

4.3. Implication of Perceived Changes on Ecosystem and Environmental Variables in the Resettled Sites

The high perception of forest degradation just after resettlement, followed by a current trend toward indifference, suggests that the community may have adjusted to forest conditions or that degradation has stabilized [17,37]. However, ongoing passive observation indicates a lack of active engagement or awareness. Policy should focus on revitalizing community-based forest management and monitoring systems, promoting reforestation with native species, and integrating local knowledge into forest governance to reverse ecological degradation and restore trust in forest recovery.
While perceptions of wildlife abundance remain high, concerns about increased human–wildlife conflicts highlight growing tension [54,55]. Policies must prioritize human–wildlife conflict mitigation strategies, such as buffer zone development, early warning systems, and compensation schemes. Strengthening wildlife corridors and involving communities in conservation incentives can balance species protection with human safety [41,43].
Consistently high perceptions of degradation of grassland, wetlands, and river upland habitats suggest these ecosystems are overlooked despite their ecological value. Policies should promote restoration and sustainable use of these areas, integrating soil conservation, controlled grazing, and riparian buffer protection [69]. Moreover, though initial perceptions showed heavy degradation on water sources, current views reflect improved or stabilized conditions, due to the improved modern water supplies facilities in the resettled area supported by the government and development partners. Water security policies should build on these gains by protecting watershed integrity, enhancing access to clean water, and reinforcing community-led water management practices [47] to maintain resilience against climate impacts ensuring sustainable supplies for resettlers.
A dramatic shift from indifference to perceived increases in forest fire incidents is aligned with contemporary real-time fire monitoring systems. This finding suggests rising fire incidents at localized and widespread, and reflects the scenarios of raising public awareness of these disasters across the country of Nepal [70,71]. This calls for urgent investment in fire prevention infrastructure, early detection, and community-based fire management programs. Policies provisions should be translated into the real ground including firebreak construction, alternative energy promotion to reduce fuelwood use, and climate-adaptive fire risk mapping, to name a few [47].
Worsening pollution in resettlement areas reflects declining soil fertility and increasing environmental degradation. Soil and air pollution are exacerbated by rising greenhouse gas emissions from solid waste accumulation, frequent forest fires, and industrial emissions. Additional concerns include noise pollution from transportation, industrial activity, and construction, as well as visual pollution caused by the unregulated placement of debris, vehicles, and utility cables. Water pollution is intensified by inadequate sanitation facilities, low awareness, and increased turbidity due to sediment runoff from upstream mining and infrastructure projects, particularly road construction. To address these issues, tailored preventive and remedial measures—such as the installation of water treatment plants, chlorination, and solar disinfection (SODIS) systems—are essential to improve household water quality [72,73,74]. A combination of all sorts of pollutions challenges the environmental health of the resettlement areas. Achieving long-term environmental health in resettled and buffer zone areas requires coordinated policy efforts and affirmative actions from all levels of government, civil society, and communities [17,35]. Furthermore, regular and participatory pollution monitoring, strict enforcement of waste management regulations, and the promotion of green technologies are critical steps toward mitigating environmental risks and ensuring sustainable resettlement as enshrined in the (sub)national policies [47,75].

4.4. Scope and Limitation of the Study

This study focuses on the ecological and policy implications of community resettlement in the expansion of Nepal’s protected areas between 1974 and 2019, with particular emphasis on Bardia, Chitwan, and Parsa National Parks, as well as emerging conservation zones like Banke and Krishnasar. It analyzes how strategic resettlement contributed to habitat restoration, flagship species recovery, and global conservation recognition. The research also covers the evolution of biological corridors across Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape—one of the world’s biodiverse regions, highlighting forest cover trends, wildlife connectivity, and transboundary conservation benefits. Moreover, it incorporates local community perceptions post-resettlement to examine shifting attitudes toward forest health, wildlife conflict, and environmental change, forming a critical basis for evaluating the long-term effectiveness of resettlement-linked conservation. By doing so, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of ER within both theoretical and practical contexts. It connects with social-ecological systems thinking [76], political ecology and governance [10], biodiversity conservation frameworks [30], and issues of social justice and equity, particularly for marginalized and vulnerable populations [39,77,78]. Furthermore, it expands the discourse on ecological and planetary justice, emphasizing ethical responsibilities toward both human and non-human life [38,39,79,80,81].
We acknowledge limitations in our study, particularly regarding biodiversity conservation and social welfare, which warrant further exploration. For example, future research should examine the viability of endangered species and their interrelationships, including interactions with local human communities, to support informed decision making. Additionally, introducing new forms of payment for environmental services in globally important biodiversity areas, assessing the impact of climate change on biodiversity dynamics, and understanding the societal effects on communities dependent on natural resources for their livelihoods represent important areas for future study. While the findings highlight notable ecological gains, they are constrained by the lack of longitudinal socio-economic data from resettled communities and the absence of baseline ecological assessments at resettlement sites before relocation. This limits our ability to fully evaluate long-term livelihood impacts, well-being, and the potential ‘displacement effects’—that is, the shifting of problems from core protected zones to buffer areas and critical biological corridors. Additionally, perception-based data may capture short-term sentiments rather than long-term engagement or environmental literacy. This study’s geographic focus on selected parks and corridors may not represent the full diversity of Nepal’s broader conservation landscape. Furthermore, dynamic challenges such as infrastructure expansion, climate change, and gaps in policy implementation hinder the replicability of current resettlement models without adaptive governance and inclusive, context-sensitive planning. Nevertheless, as a conservation case study, Nepal’s experience offers valuable insights and policy references for global audiences, with implications both within and beyond its borders.

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrates that ecological resettlement in Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape has played a pivotal role in expanding protected areas, restoring critical habitats, and enabling the recovery of flagship species like tigers, rhinos, and elephants. Strategic resettlement facilitated the upgrading of parks and the establishment of biological corridors, which significantly enhanced wildlife connectivity and supported transboundary conservation efforts. Case studies from Bardia, Chitwan, and Parsa National Parks illustrate how carefully managed resettlement can deliver measurable ecological gains. However, these benefits come with trade-offs—particularly for displaced communities, whose exclusion from planning and benefit-sharing mechanisms risks eroding trust and generating long-term resentment. Therefore, sustainable conservation depends not only on ecological success but also on equitable, participatory governance and recognition of social justice.
At the same time, resettlement areas and surrounding biodiversity corridors are under increasing pressure from environmental degradation, infrastructure expansion, and climate risks. While forest recovery and improved water access are evident, emerging challenges—such as intensified human–wildlife conflict, rising forest fires, and widespread pollution—underscore the need for adaptive management and community engagement. In a nutshell, there is a clear trade-off between protection benefits and social costs. Despite limitations in data and geographic scope, this study offers critical insights into the social-ecological dynamics of conservation-driven resettlement. Addressing these issues requires coordinated policy actions, local capacity-building, and investments in green infrastructure and ecosystem restoration. Nepal’s experience provides a valuable reference for global conservation discourse, emphasizing the importance of integrating ecological resilience, local knowledge, and environmental justice into future biodiversity strategies.

Author Contributions

H.P.P.: conceptualization, visualization, data curation, formal analysis; methodology; writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing. A.A.: writing—review and editing, supervision. T.N.M.: writing—review and editing, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are confidential to be disclosed for ethical considerations.

Acknowledgments

The first author extends thanks to the Australian Government and the University of Southern Queensland for providing the Research Training Program Stipend Scholarship and International Fees Research Scholarship that enabled this study. Additionally, the first author wishes to acknowledge the Government of Nepal for granting study leave for this research. Gratitude is extended to the field assistants (Manisha Poudel, Aakankshya Shrestha, Chintamani Panjiyar, and Prem Bahadur Bhujel) for collecting the data, as well as to local communities, parks, and forest authorities across the Terai Arc Landscape for their coordination. Generous support during the fieldwork was provided by the TAL Program, Zoological Society of London (ZSL) Nepal Program, National Trust for Nature Conservation (NTNC), and WWF Nepal Program. The authors acknowledge MDPI for providing a full APC waiver for this article to be published as open access.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there are no financial or any other conflicts of interest among the authors, supporting organizations concerning this study and data used, or any other issues concerning this research.

References

  1. Chittenden, H.M. The Yellowstone National Park; BoD—Books on Demand: Norderstedt, Germany, 2018; ISBN 978-3-7340-3915-7. [Google Scholar]
  2. Haines, A.L. Yellowstone National Park: Its Exploration and Establishment; U.S. National Park Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1974.
  3. MacArthur, R.H.; Wilson, E.O. The Theory of Island Biogeography; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2001; ISBN 978-0-691-08836-5. [Google Scholar]
  4. Simberloff, D.S. Equilibrium Theory of Island Biogeography and Ecology. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1974, 5, 161–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ostrom, E. A Diagnostic Approach for Going beyond Panaceas. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 15181–15187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ostrom, E. A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science 2009, 325, 419–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Brown, K. The Political Ecology of Biodiversity, Conservation and Development in Nepal’s Terai: Confused Meanings, Means and Ends. Ecol. Econ. 1998, 24, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Adams, W.M.; Hutton, J. People, Parks and Poverty: Political Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation. Conserv. Soc. 2007, 5, 147. [Google Scholar]
  9. Vaccaro, I.; Beltran, O.; Paquet, P.A. Political Ecology and Conservation Policies: Some Theoretical Genealogies. J. Political Ecol. 2013, 20, 255–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Svarstad, H.; Benjaminsen, T.A.; Overå, R. Power Theories in Political Ecology. J. Political Ecol. 2018, 25, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bryant, R.L.; Bailey, S. Third World Political Ecology; Psychology Press: London, UK, 1997; ISBN 978-0-415-12744-8. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kabra, A. Conservation-Induced Displacement: The Anatomy of a Win–Win Solution. Soc. Change 2013, 43, 533–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. McLean, J.; Strade, S. Conservation, Relocation, and the Paradigms of Park and People Management–A Case Study of Padampur Villages and the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2003, 16, 509–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Murdock, E.G. Conserving Dispossession? A Genealogical Account of the Colonial Roots of Western Conservation. Ethics Policy Environ. 2021, 24, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN Protected Planet: The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM) 2023. Available online: https://www.protectedplanet.net/en/thematic-areas/oecms?tab=OECMs (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  16. Baldauf, C. (Ed.) Participatory Biodiversity Conservation: Concepts, Experiences, and Perspectives; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; ISBN 978-3-030-41685-0. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pandey, H.P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Apan, A.; Pokhrel, S.; Zhang, H. Lessons from a Participatory Forest Restoration Program on Socio-Ecological and Environmental Aspects in Nepal. Trees For. People 2025, 20, 100854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pandey, H.P.; Pokhrel, N.P. Formation Trend Analysis and Gender Inclusion in Community Forests of Nepal. Trees For. People 2021, 5, 100106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pandey, H.P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Apan, A. Insights into Ecological Resettlements and Conservation-Led Displacements: A Systematic Review. Environ. Manag. 2024, 75, 1281–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Başak Dessane, E.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing Nature’s Contributions to People: The IPBES Approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26–27, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. UN. The17 Goals: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sdgs.un.org/goals (accessed on 27 May 2021).
  22. Otsuki, K. The Violence of Involuntary Resettlement and Emerging Resistance in Mozambique’s Limpopo National Park: The Role of Physical and Social Infrastructure. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Space 2023, 6, 240–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schröter, M.; van der Zanden, E.H.; van Oudenhoven, A.P.E.; Remme, R.P.; Serna-Chavez, H.M.; de Groot, R.S.; Opdam, P. Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: A Synthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments. Conserv. Lett. 2014, 7, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhang, Y.; West, P.; Thakholi, L.; Suryawanshi, K.; Supuma, M.; Straub, D.; Sithole, S.S.; Sharma, R.; Schleicher, J.; Ruli, B.; et al. Governance and Conservation Effectiveness in Protected Areas and Indigenous and Locally Managed Areas. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2023, 48, 559–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Platt, R.V.; Ogra, M.V.; Badola, R.; Hussain, S.A. Conservation-Induced Resettlement as a Driver of Land Cover Change in India: An Object-Based Trend Analysis. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 69, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Katin, N. Exploring the Ecological Dimensions of Displacement in Núcleo Itariru (Serra Do Mar State Park): An Ethnobotanical Study of Peasant/Landscape Relations in Brazil’s Atlantic Forest. J. Ethnobiol. 2020, 40, 21–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Agrawal, A.; Redford, K. Conservation and Displacement: An Overview. Conserv. Soc. 2009, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cernea, M.M.; Schmidt-Soltau, K. Poverty Risks and National Parks: Policy Issues in Conservation and Resettlement. World Dev. 2006, 34, 1808–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zen, I.S.; Saleh, M.N.; Afrizal, T.; Yaumidin, U.K.; Titisari, P.W.; Hendrayani, Y. Quo Vadis Development: Assessing the Livelihood of Indigenous People’s Communities in Malaysia and the Potential for Community-Based Conservation Effort. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2021, 23, 6502–6523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. CBD. Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets for 2030 In Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement 2022. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/article/cop15-cbd-press-release-final-19dec2022 (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  31. Yinuo Press Release: Nations Adopt Four Goals, 23 Targets for 2030 In Landmark UN Biodiversity Agreement. United Nations Sustainable Development. 2022. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2022/12/press-release-nations-adopt-four-goals-23-targets-for-2030-in-landmark-un-biodiversity-agreement/ (accessed on 27 April 2025).
  32. FAO. FAO The State of the World’s Forests 2022: Forest Pathways for Green Recovery and Building Inclusive, Resilient and Sustainable Economies; The State of the World’s Forests (SOFO); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2022; ISBN 978-92-5-135984-6. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kun, Á.; Oborny, B.; Dieckmann, U. Five Main Phases of Landscape Degradation Revealed by a Dynamic Mesoscale Model Analysing the Splitting, Shrinking, and Disappearing of Habitat Patches. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Basheer, M.; Nechifor, V.; Calzadilla, A.; Ringler, C.; Hulme, D.; Harou, J.J. Balancing National Economic Policy Outcomes for Sustainable Development. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 5041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. NPC. Sixteenth Periodic Plan of Nepal (2024/25-2028/29) 2024. Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal. Available online: https://npc.gov.np/content/6462/the-sixteenth-plan--fical-year-2024-25-2028-29-/ (accessed on 11 May 2025).
  36. Cushman, S.A.; McRae, B.; Adriaensen, F.; Beier, P.; Shirley, M.; Zeller, K. Biological Corridors and Connectivity [Chapter 21]. In Key Topics in Conservation Biology 2; Macdonald, D.W., Willis, K.J., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013; pp. 384–404. [Google Scholar]
  37. Thapa, K.; Tuladhar, S. (Eds.) Connecting Corridors; WWF Nepal: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  38. Pandey, H.P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Apan, A. Assessing the Theoretical Scope of Environmental Justice in Contemporary Literature and Developing a Pragmatic Monitoring Framework. Sustainability 2024, 16, 10799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schlosberg, D. Theorising Environmental Justice: The Expanding Sphere of a Discourse. Environ. Politics 2013, 22, 37–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chaudhary, S.; McGregor, A.; Houston, D.; Chettri, N. Environmental Justice and Ecosystem Services: A Disaggregated Analysis of Community Access to Forest Benefits in Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 99–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Martin, A.; McGuire, S.; Sullivan, S. Global Environmental Justice and Biodiversity Conservation. Geogr. J. 2013, 179, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Pandey, H.P.; Maraseni, T.N.; Apan, A.; Aryal, K. Unlocking the Tapestry of Conservation: Navigating Ecological Resettlement Policies in Nepal. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 946, 174335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. DNPWC. Protected Area Management Strategy 2022–2030 2022. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal. Available online: https://dnpwc.gov.np/media/rules/PA_Management_Strategy_2022-2030.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  44. MoFSC/GoN Strategy and Action Plan: 2015-2025 Terai Arc Landscape, Nepal 2015. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation, Singha Durbar, Kathmandu, Nepal. Available online: https://wwfasia.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/terai_arc_landscape_strategy.pdf (accessed on 2 February 2025).
  45. Lam, L.M.; Paul, S. Displacement and Erosion of Informal Risk-Sharing: Evidence from Nepal. World Dev. 2013, 43, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lohr, S.L. Sampling: Design and Analysis, 3rd ed.; Chapman and Hall/CRC: New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0-429-29889-9. [Google Scholar]
  47. GON National Forest Policy (2019) 2019; Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Singhadarbar, Kathmandu, Nepal. Available online: https://mofe.gov.np/uploads/documents/ban-niti1554873640pdf-6074-801-1658747050.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2025).
  48. Catano, V.M.; Pond, M.; Kevin Kelloway, E. Exploring Commitment and Leadership in Volunteer Organizations. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2001, 22, 256–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Thom, R.; St. Clair, T.; Burns, R.; Anderson, M. Adaptive Management of Large Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Programs in the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 2016, 183, 424–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ministry of Forests and Environment. DNPWC and DFSC, R.C. Status of Tigers and Prey in Nepal 2022; Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation; Department of Forests and Soil Conservation; Ministry of Forests and Environment: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2022.
  51. Ministry of Forests and Environment. DNPWC Annual Progress Report (Fiscal Year: 2022/023); Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation; Government of Nepal; Ministry of Forests and Environment: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2023; p. 154.
  52. Pant, G.; Maraseni, T.; Apan, A.; Allen, B.L. Identifying and Prioritising Climate Change Adaptation Actions for Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros Unicornis) Conservation in Nepal. PeerJ 2022, 10, e12795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Budhathoki, P. Linking Communities with Conservation in Developing Countries: Buffer Zone Management Initiatives in Nepal. Oryx 2004, 38, 334–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Poudyal, N.C.; Silwal, T.; Dixit, S.; Bhandari, A.R.; Kandel, R.C.; Bhatta, S.R.; Pant, G. A Perception-Based Assessment of Buffer Zone Programs’ Contribution to Integrated Conservation and Development: Evidence from Protected Areas in Nepal. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2024, 37, 1313–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Aryal, C.M.; Aryal, P.C. Wildlife Restoration in Nepal: Tracking the Conservation Translocations in the Country. J. Environ. Sci. 2023, 9, 51–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bist, B.S.; Ghimire, P.; Poudyal, L.P.; Pokharel, C.P.; Sharma, P.; Pathak, K. From Extinction to Recovery: The Case of Blackbuck Antilope Cervicapra from Nepal. Mamm. Res. 2021, 66, 519–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Musakwa, W.; Gumbo, T.; Paradza, G.; Mpofu, E.; Nyathi, N.A.; Selamolela, N.B. Partnerships and Stakeholder Participation in the Management of National Parks: Experiences of the Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. Land 2020, 9, 399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cazzolla Gatti, R. Ecological Peace Corridors: A New Conservation Strategy to Protect Human and Biological Diversity. Biol. Conserv. 2025, 302, 110947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. McCullough, I.M.; Beirne, C.; Soto-Navarro, C.; Whitworth, A. Mapping Climate Adaptation Corridors for Biodiversity—A Regional-Scale Case Study in Central America. PLoS ONE 2024, 19, e0304756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Neelakantan, A.; DeFries, R.; Krishnamurthy, R. Resettlement and Landscape-Level Conservation: Corridors, Human-Wildlife Conflict, and Forest Use in Central India. Biol. Conserv. 2019, 232, 142–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. De Royer, S.; Van Noordwijk, M.; Roshetko, J.M. Does Community-Based Forest Management in Indonesia Devolve Social Justice or Social Costs? Int. For. Rev. 2018, 20, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dulias, R. Anthropogenic and Natural Factors Influencing African World Heritage Sites. Environ. Socio-Econ. Stud. 2022, 10, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dey, D.; Arunachalam, A. Sustainable and Traditional Environmental Conservation in Asia: Concept, Approach and Case Studies of Satoyama; Advances in Geographical and Environmental Sciences; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2024; ISBN 978-981-9718-05-4. [Google Scholar]
  64. Wickramasinghe, D. Ecosystem-Based Disaster Risk Reduction. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2021; ISBN 978-0-19-938940-7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gregory, A.; Spence, E.; Beier, P.; Garding, E. Toward Best Management Practices for Ecological Corridors. Land 2021, 10, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Liczner, A.R.; Pither, R.; Bennett, J.R.; Bowman, J.; Hall, K.R.; Fletcher Jr, R.J.; Ford, A.T.; Michalak, J.L.; Rayfield, B.; Wittische, J.; et al. Advances and Challenges in Ecological Connectivity Science. Ecol. Evol. 2024, 14, e70231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Terminski, B. Development-Induced Displacement and Resettlement: Theoretical Frameworks and Current Challenges; University of Geneva: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  68. Hilty, J.A.; Keeley, A.T.H.; Lidicker, W.Z., Jr.; Merenlender, A.M. Corridor Ecology, Second Edition: Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation and Climate Adaptation; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-1-61091-951-7. [Google Scholar]
  69. Cole, L.J.; Stockan, J.; Helliwell, R. Managing Riparian Buffer Strips to Optimise Ecosystem Services: A Review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 296, 106891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. DOFSC. Forest Fire Detection and Monitoring System in Nepal. Available online: http://nepal.spatialapps.net/NepalForestFire/EN (accessed on 20 April 2025).
  71. Pandey, H.P.; Pokhrel, N.P.; Thapa, P.; Paudel, N.S.; Maraseni, T.N. Status and Practical Implications of Forest Fire Management in Nepal. J. For. Livelihood 2022, 21, 32–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chaúque, B.J.M.; Rott, M.B. Solar Disinfection (SODIS) Technologies as Alternative for Large-Scale Public Drinking Water Supply: Advances and Challenges. Chemosphere 2021, 281, 130754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ihsan, T.; Derosya, V. Drinking water problems in rural areas: Review of point-of-use methods to improve water quality and public health. Larhyss J. 2024, 21, 125–141. [Google Scholar]
  74. Phiri, D.B.; Bavumiragira, J.P.; Yin, H. Efficacy of Solar Water Disinfection Treatment System in Improving Rural and Peri-Urban Household Drinking Water Quality and Reducing Waterborne Diarrhoeal Diseases. AQUA-Water Infrastruct. Ecosyst. Soc. 2023, 72, 1288–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. GoN/MoFE National Environment Policy, 2019, Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment, Kathmandu, Nepal. Available online: https://mofe.gov.np/uploads/documents/national-environment-policy1563366482pdf-2660-693-1658746861.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2025).
  76. Ostrom, E. Do Institutions for Collective Action Evolve? J. Bioecon. 2014, 16, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Miller, D. Social Justice; OUP Oxford: Oxford, UK, 1979; ISBN 978-0-19-159079-5. [Google Scholar]
  78. Mohai, P.; Pellow, D.; Roberts, J.T. Environmental Justice. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2009, 34, 405–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Baxter, B.H. Ecological Justice and Justice as Impartiality. Environ. Politics 2000, 9, 43–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Cochrane, A. Sentientist Politics: A Theory of Global Inter-Species Justice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018; ISBN 978-0-19-250702-0. [Google Scholar]
  81. Kashwan, P.; Biermann, F.; Gupta, A.; Okereke, C. Planetary Justice: Prioritizing the Poor in Earth System Governance. Earth Syst. Gov. 2020, 6, 100075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Land 14 01057 g001
Figure 1. A map showing the Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal, labeling protected areas, buffer zones, and critical corridors within the landscape.
Figure 1. A map showing the Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal, labeling protected areas, buffer zones, and critical corridors within the landscape.
Land 14 01057 g001
Land 14 01057 g002
Figure 2. Perceived ecological and environmental attributes changed just after resettlement and at the present compared to their previous status. (a) Perceived status of ecosystem and environmental attributes just after the resettlement reflecting the scenario of resettled sites; and (b) perceived present (in 2024) status of resettled sites and their ecological and environmental conditions.
Figure 2. Perceived ecological and environmental attributes changed just after resettlement and at the present compared to their previous status. (a) Perceived status of ecosystem and environmental attributes just after the resettlement reflecting the scenario of resettled sites; and (b) perceived present (in 2024) status of resettled sites and their ecological and environmental conditions.
Land 14 01057 g002
Table 1. Sample size considered for this study in the resettled villages across the TAL area of Nepal.
Table 1. Sample size considered for this study in the resettled villages across the TAL area of Nepal.
National ParkResettled VillagesSampled VillagesName of VillagesTotal HH in Sampled VillagesSample Size (HH)Resettlement Period [42]
Parsa NP44Ramauli228622009–2013
Pratappur14940
Rambhauri Bhata9630
Chitwan NP11Padampur5161081995–1998
Total55 989240
[Note: To facilitate cohesive data collection and analysis, residents from two evacuated villages were relocated to a single resettlement site. Following the relocation, the area—originally known as “Rambhauri Bhata”—was renamed “Krishnanagar”. Unless otherwise specified, the study considers three key timeframes: pre-resettlement, the immediate post-resettlement period (first five years), and the current period (survey year: 2024)].
Table 2. Protected area of Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal and its ecological enhancement primarily due to people displacements (ecological resettlements).
Table 2. Protected area of Terai Arc Landscape of Nepal and its ecological enhancement primarily due to people displacements (ecological resettlements).
Protected AreasPeriod of ResettlementArea Before ResettlementArea After ResettlementNet Gain in Area (sq. km)Ecological and Environmental Status Before ResettlementEcological and Environmental Status After (at Present) ResettlementSignificant Contribution of People’s Displacement
Core AreaBuffer Zones
Parsa National Park2009–2013499 sq. km core area and 285.3 sq. km of buffer zone627.39 sq. km core area in 2017, and upgraded the status of the reserve to a national park126.39285.3Established in 1984 as a wildlife reserve with an area of 499 sq. kmParsa area harbor 45–50 wild Asian elephants, 41 tigers, 105 gaur (Bos gaurus), and 3 one-horned rhinos, extended core area by 20.63 sq. km.Extended the area and upgraded the PA status (IUCN category IV to II)
Chitwan National Park1995–1998932 sq. Core area in 1973 and a 729.37 sq. km buffer zone 952.63 sq. km20.63729.37Buffer zone declared in 1996, enlisted in world heritage site (1984), rhinoceros’ habitat protection, tiger and elephants present; however, their populations were estimated to be low compared to the status. In 2003, Bishajari and associated lakes were enlisted in the Ramsar site, a major habitat of 694 one-horned rhinos in Nepal, 128 royal Bengal tigers, 388 Gaurs (Bos gaurus), and around 45 Asiatic wild elephantsExtended the area, and included Ramsar sites (IUCN category II)
Banke National Park2014550 core and 343 buffer zone550 core and 343 buffer zone0.5343Declared as ‘gift to the Earth’. Last resort of the four-horned antelope (Tetraceros quadricornis) in Nepal. Extended habitat of Bardia National Park. 4 tigers recorded in 2013Additional habitat for mega carnivores like tiger, mega herbivores like Elephants, and potential habitats for other mega wildlife. One of the important bird areas out of 37 identified areas across the country. Registered for conservation assured tiger standard (CATS) in 2026.Newly established (IUCN category II).
Bardia National Park1982–1984348968 sq. km core and 507 sq. km buffer zones (327 sq. km in 1996, and 180 sq. km in 2010).620507Royal hunting reserve was established in 1969 and later Royal Karnali Wildlife Reserve in 1976 area of 348 sq. km.Extended the area and upgraded the status from wildlife reserve to national park in 1988. Harbors 11 specimens of dolphins, 125 tigers, 38 rhinos, and around elephants, among others (CATS certification).Extended the area and upgraded the PA status (IUCN category IV to II).
Suklaphant National Park1974–2002155305 sq. km core area and 243.5 sq. km buffer zones150243.5Royal wildlife reserve of 155 sq. km was established in 1976. The last resort of the swamp deer’s largest population (>2500), and one of the largest grasslands of Asia (52 sq. km)Upgraded wildlife reserve into a national park and in 2017, recognized important habitat of tiger, one-horned rhinos, and elephants, among others. Enlisted conserved assured tiger standard (CATS) in 2016 and harbors 36 royal Bengal tigers, 21 one-horned rhinos and 22–26 wild Asiatic elephants, among others.Extended the area and upgraded the PA status (IUCN category IV to II).
Krishnasar Conservation Area2009–2019016.95511.95None existed, started up from 9 adult black buckCome into existence of the last refugia of the black conservation site of Nepal. Harbor more than 170 adult blackbuck and source population for Nepal including the source of subpopulation Suklaphanta NP.Newly established conservation area (IUCN category VI)
[Note: Buffer zones around the national parks and wildlife reserves are also considered as protected area in Nepal, enforcing same laws, and falls under the IUCN category of VI].
Table 3. Identified critical biological corridors across Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape Area and their socio-ecological and environmental significances.
Table 3. Identified critical biological corridors across Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape Area and their socio-ecological and environmental significances.
S.N.Name of CorridorCorridor Area (sq. km)Forest Cover (sq. km)Forest Cover Changes 2015–2020 (ha)Key Wildlife SpeciesPrimary Habitat TypesPrimary ChallengesMajor RiversBeneficiary (HH)ConnectionRemarks
1Brahmadev160.32140.96264Himalayan Tahr, four-horned antelope, sambar deer, leopard, elephantSal forests and mixed hardwood forestsDrought, landslides, overgrazing, water crisisMahakali, Rangoon, Puntura, SyaliNot availableShPNP Champawat forest division (India- Nandhaur WLS)Transboundary climate corridor
2Barandabar109.1399.1838Tiger, leopard, elephant, white ramped vulture, gharialSal forests, wetlands, grasslandDrought, water pollution, eutrophication, river positioning, encroachment, invasive species, east–west highway, railwayKhageri, Beeshazari, and associated lakes72,000 populationCNP-Chure-Mahabharat-Chitwan Annapurna Landscape (CHAL)Connecting lowlands to uphill, vertical biological connection in the resettlement sites those people evacuated from Chitwan NP
3Laljhadi-Mohana367.89227.46454Tiger, leopard, elephant, deer speciesSal, riverine forest, mixed hardwood forest, and Chirpine forestsOvergrazing, poaching, river poisoning, fuelwood collection, sand and gravel mining, postal highway, railwayMohana, Macheli, DondhaNot availableShPNP-Chure-Dudhwa NPAbout 12% of the area in the Chure region, sustainable forest management initiated
4Basanta654.32393.6697Tiger, leopard, langur, river dolphin, deer speciesSal forests and grasslandsOvergrazing, floods, river poisoning, encroachment, forest fires, fuel wood collection, postal and east–west highway, railwayMohana, Likma, Kandra, Gauriganga, Ghodaghodi LakeNot availableChure-Dudhwa NP of IndiaConnecting Suklaphanta NP to Bardia NP through Chure hills and Dudhwa NP of India
5Kamdi667.36524.411191Elephant, tiger, leopard, hyena, slothbear, sambar deer, leopard cat, gharialSal forest, mixed hardwood forest, flood plain, grasslandsovergrazing, fuel wood collection, poaching, droughts, sand and gravel mining, postal highway, irrigation canalsRapti141 forest users’ groupsBanke NP-Suhelwa WLSVery high threat from climate change and biodiversity
6Karnali148.95111.37−263Tiger, leopard, gharial, dolphin, elephant, rhinoceros, honey badger, golden jackalriverine forests and floodplains, grasslandsovergrazing, forest fires, floods, sand and gravel mining, drought, postal highway, railway, irrigation canalKarnaliSonaha and majhi- indigenous fishery dependent communityBNP-Katarniaghat WLs-ChureHigh threat from climate change and biodiversity the most chronic among all corridors in terms of human disturbances
7Khata202.3996.57257Elephant, tiger, leopard, rhinoceros, sambar deer, leopard catRiverine forests, mixed hardwood forest, Sal forest, grasslandsnegative human wildlife interactions, poaching, overgrazing, linear infrastructure, postal highway, and the irrigation canalKarnali, Geruwa, Orahi, Babai6000 householdBNP-Katarniaghat WLsResettled the people evicted from Bardia NP and reported to 46 tiger used this corridor, transboundary and self-functional ecosystem
8Lamahi243.74146.25553Hyena, elephant, leopard, deer speciesMixed hardwood forest and Sal forestsDeforestation, overgrazingRapti385,000 populationEast Chure- Banke NPWater resource enhanced, and notable participatory forest restoration promoted
9Shikaribas3.261.4997Tiger, elephant, leopard, deer species, wild boarMixed hardwood forests and grasslandsEncroachment, fuelwood collection, postal highwayShikaribas KholaNot availableCNP and PNP -Valmiki TRSmallest, less attention but critical
Total2557.361741.293288
Table 4. Perceived changes in ecosystem and environmental variables by resettled communities immediately after resettlement and in the long term within the study area (n = 240).
Table 4. Perceived changes in ecosystem and environmental variables by resettled communities immediately after resettlement and in the long term within the study area (n = 240).
Ecosystem and Environmental VariablesJust After Resettlement (Within 5 Years)p-ValueAt Present (in 2024 of Resettlement)p-Value
IncreasedDecreasedIndifferenceIncreasedDecreasedIndifference
Forest covers36158461.50821 × 10−8 *16921325.27317 × 10−14 *
Forest compositions32136728.50965 × 10−5 *18761461.31065 × 10−12 *
Wildlife abundances86124305.09887 × 10−8 *8070900.060346028
Human–wildlife conflicts68130420.000949814 *10860726.23979 × 10−8 *
Grassland and river upland areas14150761.75094 × 10−11 *26941201.50562 × 10−10 *
Water sources56124600.27474686964301462.83134 × 10−7 *
Bush fires8221561.4468 × 10−50 *12460562.224 × 10−15 *
Pollution10870621.90732 × 10−12 *122141042.48316 × 10−17 *
[Note: Asterisk (*) indicates the significant level at 5%, unless otherwise specified, figures in the cell represent the frequencies of respective responses upon given variables].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pandey, H.P.; Apan, A.; Maraseni, T.N. Impacts of Conservation-Led Resettlements in Nepal: Ecological Perspectives. Land 2025, 14, 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051057

AMA Style

Pandey HP, Apan A, Maraseni TN. Impacts of Conservation-Led Resettlements in Nepal: Ecological Perspectives. Land. 2025; 14(5):1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051057

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pandey, Hari Prasad, Armando Apan, and Tek Narayan Maraseni. 2025. "Impacts of Conservation-Led Resettlements in Nepal: Ecological Perspectives" Land 14, no. 5: 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051057

APA Style

Pandey, H. P., Apan, A., & Maraseni, T. N. (2025). Impacts of Conservation-Led Resettlements in Nepal: Ecological Perspectives. Land, 14(5), 1057. https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051057

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop