residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern nepal

Abstract Understanding people’s beliefs and attitudes toward protected areas is akey factor in developing successful management plans to conserve those areas overthe long-term. Yet, most of the emphasis in understanding people’s perceptions hasbeen on the conflicts that exist between people and protected areas, such as loss oftraditional extraction access or damage by wildlife to crops and livestock. This studyaddresses the need to explore people’s attitudes toward protected areas in a way thatallows them to define and describe the values they hold toward the areas and therelevant issues and concepts. Three contrasting protected areas in the southwesternregion of Nepal were chosen for this study to gain a broad representation of thevalues people hold toward different types of protected areas. Three themes emergedthat describe the positive perceptions residents have: recreation/esthetics, environ-mental preservation, and economic benefits. Four themes emerged that describe thenegative perceptions: negative economic impacts, belief that benefits are for thegovernment or foreigners, fear of wildlife, and negative interactions with parkguards. People’s perceptions are affected by different aspects of the areas, includingthe size of the area and people’s access to them, management objectives, history, andtourism. The diversity of these perceptions suggests that conservation strategiesshould recognize both positive and negative perceptions and work to foster andintegrate diverse values in order to more accurately reflect the reality and com-plexity of people’s lives.

Keywords Park–people relationships Æ Protected areas Æ Attitude ÆPerception Æ Values Æ Conservation Æ Management Æ Nepal

T. D. Allendorf (&)110 Elm St., Mazomanie, WI 53560, USAe-mail: [email protected]

123

Biodivers Conserv (2007) 16:2087–2102DOI 10.1007/s10531-006-9092-z

ORI GI N A L P A PE R

Residents’ attitudes toward three protected areasin southwestern Nepal

Teri D. Allendorf

Received: 18 April 2005 / Accepted: 3 July 2006 / Published online: 27 October 2006� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Introduction

Over 100,000 protected areas account for 12% of the world’s land area (WorldConservation Monitoring Centre 2004). These protected areas are seen as a keystrategy to conserve biodiversity. However, the creation and maintenance of theseareas in many countries is contentious. Their establishment often entails resettlingand depriving people of access to resources upon which they have depended forgenerations (Western 1989; West and Brechin 1991). If protected areas are to beconserved over the long-term, management must address local residents’ concernsand integrate them into management strategies (e.g., Dasmann 1984; Machlis andTichnell 1985; Zube 1986; Brandon and Wells 1992; Newmark et al. 1993; Fiallo andJacobson 1995; Furze et al. 1996).

Most of the emphasis in understanding people’s perceptions has been on theconflicts that exist between people and protected areas, such as loss of traditionalextraction access or damage by wildlife to crops and livestock (see, e.g., Hough 1988;Parry and Campbell 1992; Heinen 1993; Nepal and Weber 1995; Studsrød andWegge 1995; Tisdell 1995; de Boer and Baquete 1998; Gillingham and Lee 1999;Maikhuri et al. 2000; Stræde and Helles 2000).

Although little attention has been given to the non-economic benefits of pro-tected areas that residents may value in developing countries, studies indicate thatresidents do value areas for non-economic reasons, such as ecosystem services,conservation of wildlife, and benefits for future generations. Heinen (1993) found33% said one of the reasons they like Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve was because itconserved wildlife and a small, unspecified percentage mentioned the nice views andleisure opportunities. Infield (1988) found that residents around a local conservationarea in Natal, South Africa, appreciated the potential the area had as an educationand leisure facility, and a few respondents expressed excitement at the opportunitythey had to see wildlife when they had traveled by bus through the area. Fiallo andJacobson (1995) found that over 90% of respondents felt it was important to protectthe forest in Machalilla National Park, Ecuador, for their children. Newmark et al.(1993) found that among the reasons a majority of respondents opposed abolishmentof five protected areas in Tanzania were that the areas protect wildlife, protectnatural heritage and the watersheds, and are for future generations.

However, these studies have some limitations for understanding people’s per-ceptions of the parks either because they may have biased people’s responses or theydid not allow the respondents to define their perceptions themselves. In the case ofHeinen (1993), for example, although the questionnaire asked for benefits andproblems of the Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve in Nepal using open-ended questions,it did so after asking people about wildlife crop damage and the resources that theyextracted from the sanctuary, which might have led people to emphasize those issuesin their answers. Infield (1988) and Fiallo and Jacobson (1995) used a predeterminedset of statements that limited the set of values people could express to those reflectedin the statements chosen by the researchers. Newmark et al. (1993) asked people ifthey supported or opposed abolishment of the areas and then asked them the rea-sons for their response. Although their reasons for opposing abolishment may beidentical to their reasons for appreciating the park, it is a different question and mayprompt different responses.

123

2088 Biodivers Conserv (2007) 16:2087–2102

This study addresses the need to explore people’s attitudes toward protectedareas in a way that allows them to define and describe the values they hold towardthe areas and the relevant issues and concepts. Three contrasting protected areas inthe southwestern region of Nepal were chosen for this study to gain a broadrepresentation of the values people hold toward different types of protected areasand to look for similarities and differences among them. The three protected areas,one national park, one local park, and one development area that incorporated aconservation area, have different histories and management strategies, includingdifferent degrees of legal access for local residents.

Study sites

This study was conducted in three protected areas in southern Nepal: Kaakri Bihaar,a ‘‘natural park’’; Royal Bardia National Park; and the northern section of theLumbini Development Project, a wildlife sanctuary (Fig. 1 and Table 1).

Kaakri Bihaar, located in western Nepal in Surkhet District, was established in1974 as a ‘‘natural park’’ (H. N. Mandal 1995, Submitted) by King Birendra BirBikram Shah Deva. It is managed by the Department of Forestry in Surkhet, and isapproximately 176 ha. It is home to the endangered hispid hare, leopards, and manyspecies of birds. The remains of an ancient Buddhist temple are located at thehighest point of the area. All extraction is illegal, but since the advent of democracyin 1991, extraction of fodder and dead wood is informally allowed. The area islocated in the middle of a valley along the southern edge of the Himalayan foothills,within a mile of the district center, Birendranagar. The major management issuesinclude the relatively unrestricted extraction of fodder, thatch, and fuelwood by localresidents from the area. Although there are guards patrolling, they are not veryeffective in deterring people from extracting from the area. Local residents canavoid encountering them because they know the patrolling schedule and, even whencaught, the guards are generally lenient.

Royal Bardia National Park, located in southwestern Nepal, was established in1969 as a hunting reserve, and became a national park in 1989. It has an area of

Fig. 1 Location of study sites

123

Biodivers Conserv (2007) 16:2087–2102 2089

968 km2. The area is managed by the Department of National Parks and WildlifeConservation (DNPWC). The management issues of Royal Bardia NP are typical ofa national park in a developing country and include balancing the need for strictprotection of the park’s biodiversity with the needs of local communities.

Like most national parks and reserves in Nepal, the Royal Nepalese Army isresponsible for guarding the park and enforcing its rules and regulations, includingcontrolling poachers, stopping illegal fishing, checking boundaries, preventingencroachment into the park, and preventing livestock grazing and extraction ofresources by area residents. Extraction is illegal except for the cutting of thatch grassonce a year, for which residents must pay a fee; and fishing, for which a permit isrequired. A number of canals connect the Geruwa and Babai Rivers to agriculturalfields adjacent to the park. These canals were built by local residents, who areallowed to enter the park to control the flow of water and maintain the canals(Upreti 1994).

The DNPWC opened Royal Bardia NP for grasscutting in 1983 under the premisethat people will support national parks if they accrue economic benefits from themand to recompense people for their loss of access to park resources. Many of thephantas (grassland habitats) in the park were cultivated and grazed between 1965and 1975. In 1976, the phantas were fenced and closed to residents. Initially, a oneNepali rupee (NR) fee was charged for a cutting permit and the area was open for15 days. However, over the years, as the number of people entering the park to cutthatch increased, the fee was raised to 12 NR, still a relatively modest fee, and thelength of time was decreased to 10 days. Once they have purchased their permit,people are allowed to enter the park each of the 10 days to cut as much grass as theyare able. No carts or other means of transportation are allowed inside the park.People load up bullock carts outside the park entrances to transport the grass backto the villages. Between 1983 and 1993, the number of permits sold more thandoubled, from 21,000 to 45,500 permits. In 1994, the number of permits began todecrease for the first time, dropping 4%.

Lumbini, in south central Nepal, was created approximately 25 years ago todevelop the Buddha’s birthplace as a tourist and religious site. In 1995, 120 ha at thenorthern end of the area were leased from the Lumbini Development Trust as awildlife sanctuary for the Sarus Crane (Grus antigone) by two organizations, the

Table 1 Summary description of protected areas studied in southwestern Nepal

Kaakri Bihaar Royal Bardia NationalPark

Lumbini

Managementobjective

Natural park National park Wildlife sanctuary

Managementauthority

District forestryoffice

Department ofnational parksand wildlifeconservation

Lumbini developmentproject & non-governmentalorganizations

Size 176 ha 968 km2 120 haDate established 1974 Reserve: 1969 Development area: early 1970s

National park: 1989 Wildlife sanctuary: 1995Entry Freely With permit FreelyExtraction Informally,

dead woodand fodder

Thatch once per year Thatch once per year; informally,fodder

123


Buddhist Perspective of Nature and the International Crane Foundation. At thetime of the study, most residents were unaware of the new status of this section ofthe area as a wildlife sanctuary, considering it either simply a protected forest or anarea that had not yet been developed with monasteries or hotels by the LumbiniDevelopment Trust. The extraction of thatch one time each year and fodderthroughout the year was legal at the time the study was conducted.

The larger Lumbini area is highly politicized from the local to the internationallevel. One article described the area as ‘‘marked by corruption, malfeasance and badmanagement of a politicized leadership, and uninterested bureaucrats’’ (Pathak1995, p 25). Villagers who lived in the area when it was first created 20 years agowere resettled outside the area and promised roads, employment opportunities,schools, health posts, water systems, and electricity by the Lumbini DevelopmentTrust, little of which materialized. Currently, Buddhist sects from around the worldcompete to build the most impressive monasteries, often breaking the agreementsestablished in the original development plan, while plans to build a high school forlocal residents have been cancelled. A large pipal tree, which grew next to theMayadevi Temple, has been cut to facilitate archaeological excavation of the site.The destruction of the tree is significant because the tree was symbolic for both localresidents and for Buddhists around the world. Consequently, many people are upsetthat the tree was not preserved. Some speculate that seven fires, which occurred inthe area were set by local residents as a form of protest (Pathak 1995).

The management issues of the Lumbini wildlife sanctuary include the need toincrease local residents’ awareness of the new status of the area, develop a con-structive relationship with adjacent communities, and fulfill the promises made tothe residents at the time of the creation of the area, such as increased employmentand development.

Two major ethnic groups reside in each of the three protected areas. Residents inboth Kaakri Bihaar and Royal Bardia NP consist mainly of tharu and pahadi. Tharuare the indigenous group of the terai and inner terai, the flat plain stretching thelength of southern Nepal. Pahadi migrated from the hills during the 1960s aftereradication of malaria in the terai. Tharu traditionally have been more dependent onthe resources of the forest and on a wider variety of species than have the pahadi(Muller-Boker 1991). Tharu also often work as kamaiya, bonded laborers, or adhiya,sharecroppers, for the pahadi or for other wealthy tharus. Around Kaakri Bihaar, asmall percentage of residents are Buddhist who make their living transporting sta-ples such as rice and salt to and from the higher hills. In Lumbini, local residents areMuslim or Hindu and have lived in the area for many generations.

Methods

One hundred standardized open-ended interviews of both men and women over18 years old from surrounding villages were conducted at each of the three sites. Aspart of a longer survey, a list of beliefs about the protected areas was generated byasking people why they liked the area and what advantages (positive attributes) theyperceived the area as providing. Conversely, we also asked why they disliked thearea and what difficulties the area caused (negative attributes). Attitude wasdetermined by asking people if they liked or disliked the area.

123


Attitudes and beliefs are defined using attitude theory from the field of socialpsychology (Ajzen and Fishbein 1980). An attitude is a human psychological ten-dency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity, called an attitude object,with some degree of favor of disfavor. Attitude consists of beliefs, which are theassociations that people establish between the attitude object and various attributes.For example, in the phrase, ‘‘a national park is part of a country’s wealth,’’ nationalpark is the attitude object, country’s wealth is an attribute, and is part is a relationalterm.

Because Kaakri Bihaar and Lumbini are relatively small, interviews were con-ducted in adjacent villages. In Royal Bardia NP, villages were chosen based on theircontrasting locations, including distance to the nearest government forest andaccessibility to park headquarters. Participants were chosen on the basis of the orderin which they were met as I walked through village visiting each house in turn.People were interviewed outside their homes or in adjacent fields. Only one adult ina household was interviewed. This method facilitated equal representation of menand women, except in Lumbini, where women were particularly reluctant to beinterviewed.

Responses were separated into positive and negative attributes, coded, and tab-ulated. Coded attributes were then clustered into related categories, or themes(Patton 1990; Miles and Huberman 1994). For example, all attributes that describeextraction of some resource from the park were labeled ‘‘extractive benefits.’’ Al-though these categories are similar or identical to value classification schemesdescribed by others, they were not decided upon a priori but arose from analysis ofthe data.

To determine the best predictors of attitude, a discriminant function techniqueconditional on the observations was used. This approach is equivalent to logisticregression. The analysis considered the categories of benefits and problems thatpeople perceived for each area, as well as seven demographic and socio-economicvariables (age, gender, social group, caste, education, family size, and landholding).A post hoc classification procedure using fisher classification functions was also used.For verification of the classification, a ‘‘leave-one-out’’ criterion was used.

Results

Demographic characteristics of respondents were similar across the three areas(Table 2). The mean age across the three areas ranged from 33 to 38. The averageamount of education was 3 years. The mean family size ranged from 6 to 10 indi-viduals. Mean landholding in the three areas ranged from 0.7 to 1.5 ha. The majorityof respondents in all areas were farmers, although respondents also includedlaborers, office workers, students, teachers, and people who worked in traditionaloccupations, such as blacksmiths. The percentage of landless ranged from 32% inKaakri Bihaar to 12% in Lumbini.

Respondents around Kaakri Bihaar were the most positive, with almost allrespondents stating that they liked the area and citing at least one benefit. Less thanhalf of the respondents around Kaakri Bihaar mentioned a specific problem that theareas caused. Approximately half of respondents around Royal Bardia NP andLumbini liked the areas and more than half cited at least one benefit of the area.

123


However, a large majority of respondents around Royal Bardia NP and Lumbinimentioned negative attributes (Table 3).

Three broad categories emerged that describe the benefits of the areas thatpeople perceived: recreation and esthetics, conservation and ecosystem services,extractive benefits, and management activities (Table 4). Four categories emergedthat describe the problems people perceived: no extraction, conflicts with manage-ment, and problems with wildlife (Table 5).

It should be noted that people’s perceptions of attributes are not necessarilyindependent of each other. For example, extraction and recreation can occursimultaneously. Women often go in groups to cut wood or fodder and enjoy oneanother’s company; they may sit in the shade of a tree to rest. Additionally, somevalue statements have more than one meaning. For example, at Lumbini, resettle-ment has been categorized as a conflict with management. However, resettlementalso includes a feeling of loss for people; one woman nostalgically described how shevisits the site of their old home and fields. Another example of multiple meanings isthe problem of residents being denied access to the areas. ‘‘No access’’ has beencategorized as a conflict with management because it is the management that setsand enforces this rule. However, some people, for example, mentioned it in thecontext of not being allowed to extract resources from the area while others resentednot being able to enter the park for recreational purposes, such as to take a walk.

Table 3 Percentage of interviewees who responded with like, dislike or who listed at least onebenefit or one problem of protected areas

Attitude Kaakri Bihaar (%) Royal Bardia National Park (%) Lumbini (%)

Like 97 50 55Dislike 3 50 45Benefitsa 96 59 63Problemsb 37 85 72

a For complete list of benefits see Table 4b For complete list of problems see Table 5

Table 2 Socio-economic summary for each of the protected areas included in the study

Kaakri Bihaar Royal BardiaNational Park

Lumbini

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Age (years) 35.2 12.3 32.8 13.6 38.0 14.4Education (years) 2.9 4.2 2.61 4.0 3.1 4.1Family size (number of people) 6.5 2.5 7.8 4.4 9.6 6.3Land (ha) 0.7 1.3 1.1 1.7 1.5 1.7

(%) (%) (%)Female 47 51 25Male 53 49 75Farmer 55 70 80Landless 32 21 12Hindu 62 60 44Tharu 28 39 0Buddhist 8 0 0Muslim 0 0 56

123


Positive themes

Recreation and esthetics

A majority of respondents in the two smaller areas, Kaakri Bihaar and Lumbini,where people have free and legal access, reported appreciating recreation and

Table 4 Residents’ perceptions of benefits of three protected areas in Nepal

Kaakri Bihaar(%)

Royal Bardia NationalPark (%)

Lumbini(%)

Recreation/esthetics 64 30 55Good to see/beautiful 19 14 27Green 12 12 18Take walks 29 7 19Shade 10 2 8See new people 2 4 9Jungle all around 6 2 1Sit/rest 4 1 1For show 3 2See wildlife 7 3For people to come to see 4 1See things 1 1Temple conservation 12 10Bathe 1Conservation and ecosystem services 29 32 14Conserve forest 11 13 7Improved climate 6 8 6Rain/water 5 9 2Increase/conservation of wildlife 4 7 1Forest is country’s wealth 2 4 2For the future 9 2 1Healthy 1 1 1Would all be gone if not protected 2 4Good for environment 1Clean 2Extraction 58 36 11Can extract (illegally)Fodder 49 5 5Fuelwood 24 12 2Fruit/vegetables 15 3 1Wood for lumber 1 1Leaves for fertilizer 4Mud/clay 3Flowers 2Fish 1Can extract thatch (legally) 2 27 8Can steal 1 4Grazing 1Management activities 2Employment 2 8Development 1 5Road 4OthersArea is nearby 24 1Tourism 2 2Good for area 1 1

123


esthetic benefits. Only about one-third of the respondents appreciated them in RoyalBardia NP, where people have to pay to enter the area, although most people enterillegally without paying.

In all three areas, respondents felt the area is nice to look at, or beautiful, andthey like its ‘‘greenness.’’ Respondents said they like walking in the area, sitting inthe shade of the trees, and enjoying the cool breezes: ‘‘It is for people to have a cool,shady place to visit’’ (KB). Others mentioned enjoying the opportunity to see andtalk with people who visit the area from other places in Nepal and from othercountries: ‘‘You came. Conversation is available with people like you’’ (KB). Somesaid the area was good for ‘‘show’’, using the English word. Others said it is good tohave forest around villages.

Residents enjoy the opportunity to see wildlife in the areas. Respondents said thatthe areas are ramaailo, a word that means entertaining, enjoyable, or fun. A fewpeople mentioned it was generally good to have the protected area for the benefit ofthe surrounding area; for example, one man said that Kaakri Bihaar is the ‘‘super-hit’’ of Surkhet because it makes the area famous all over the country. In KaakriBihaar and Lumbini, residents enjoy visiting the temples and, in Lumbini, they enjoywatching the progress of the hotels and monasteries as they are being built. Theareas also provide a place for private ablutions: one respondent said that RoyalBardia NP provided a place to bathe; one respondent said a benefit of Lumbini washaving a place to go to the toilet.

Table 5 Residents’ perceptions of problems caused by three protected areas in Nepal

KaakriBihaar (%)

Royal BardiaNational Park (%)

Lumbini(%)

No extraction 34 67 32No extraction ofFuelwood 29 53 18Fodder 13 29 7Fruit/vegetables 1 1Water 2 1Mud/clay 4Leaves for fertilizer 2Lumber 6Fish 3No extraction in general 7 26 13No grazing 2 18 5Thatch limited/expensive 5 2Conflicts with management 6 30 50No access 4 18 2Grazing fines 2 6Benefits are for

government and/or foreigners4 4

Negative interactions with guards 5 1Government took land 38No work available 19Problems with wildlife 2 35 28Wildlife eat crops 2 35 28Livestock depredation 4 18Fear of wildlife 1 5

123


Conservation and ecosystem services

Residents around Kaakri Bihaar and Royal Bardia NP were more appreciative ofconservation and ecosystem services than residents around Lumbini, probably be-cause of the areas’ larger sizes, which allows for the conservation of forest andanimals. However, residents around Lumbini were as likely as respondents in theother areas to say that the area improves the climate.

People said the areas provide a clean and healthy environment and a good cli-mate. They make the air cleaner and the soil moister because more rain falls. Theysaid forests are Nepal’s wealth and often used a phrase taught in school, ‘‘hariyo banNepalko dhan’’ (green forest is Nepal’s wealth). Some respondents said it isimportant to conserve wildlife and the forest both now and for the future. ‘‘It is goodthat the government takes care of the forest and later it will be available for childrenand grandchildren’’ (KB). Some said the forest and animals would all be gonebecause of the pressure from people if the areas were not protected. Another said,‘‘Wildlife are good. We would all go and cut the forest. In Nepal, the forest is not in agood condition for wildlife, so the government made this place for them’’ (RBNP).

Extraction

Over half of respondents in Kaakri Bihaar and more than one-third of respondentsin Royal Bardia NP felt that extraction was a benefit of the areas, while only a smallnumber felt it was a benefit in Lumbini. As one respondent said, ‘‘They will not let ustake grass and wood, but if we really need it we can steal it’’ (KB). People mentionedextraction of fodder, fuelwood, fruit, vegetables, wood for lumber, leaves for fer-tilizer, clay soil for houses, flowers, and fish. Respondents also mentioned theavailability of thatch, which, in Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, is available legallyonce a year.

Management activities

Work opportunities and development are considered a benefit in Lumbini, and to avery limited extent in Royal Bardia NP. The building of monasteries and hotels inLumbini has created manual labor job opportunities for local residents, opportuni-ties that were promised when the government resettled people living within the area.As described later and as exemplified by the following quote, however, lack of workis also considered a negative attribute of the area: ‘‘If work is available, then it’sgood; if work is not available, then it’s not good’’ (LB).

A few respondents in Lumbini mentioned development as a positive attribute,with some people in one village referring specifically to the road built around thearea that makes it easier for residents to reach the main road, particularly during themonsoon.

Negative themes

Lack of extraction

A majority of respondents around Royal Bardia NP feel extraction is a problem,while less than half mentioned it about Kaakri Bihaar and Lumbini. Although local

123


residents view extraction as a benefit, as described earlier, they consider a lack oflegal extraction to be a problem, particularly of fuelwood and fodder. As onerespondent said, ‘‘It was created for the government to raise their own animals, butwe cannot raise our own livestock or cut wood’’ (RBNP). In Kaakri Bihaar, residentsalso resent not being allowed to extract clay and soil for maintaining their houses,leaves to use as fertilizer on their fields, and fruit and vegetables. In Royal BardiaNP, people resent not being allowed to extract wood for lumber, fruit and vegeta-bles, and fish. In Lumbini, people resent not being allowed to extract thatch freely.

People also resent that they cannot graze their livestock in the areas and that theyare fined when their animals are caught illegally grazing. A few respondents in RoyalBardia NP and Lumbini mentioned they feel thatch is available for too short a timeeach year and some resent having to pay the small fee to cut thatch.

Management

Residents around Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini report conflicts with managementas a problem more than residents around Kaakri Bihaar. Respondents resent thatmanagement restricts their access to the areas. In Kaakri Bihaar and Lumbini, wherethey can freely enter the area, this response implied frustration with not being ableto extract. However, in Royal Bardia NP, they are frustrated that they cannot legallyenter, even for recreational purposes, without a permit. As one respondent said,‘‘The army tells us we cannot even go to the toilet’’ (RBNP).

In the case of Royal Bardia NP, villages near park headquarters also may havemore conflicts then those farther away. One respondent in Royal Bardia NP said:‘‘There is more trouble for us because the [park] headquarters are near, 500% moretrouble. We cannot scare the animals as much as in other places, where they can killand eat them.’’

A few people mentioned being arrested and physically or verbally abused byguards in Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini. One respondent said, ‘‘The guards pull ourears if we go in’’ (RBNP). Another person said the guards beat children (RBNP).Although no one in Kaakri Bihaar mentioned this as a negative attribute, one personsaid in another context, ‘‘The forest guards are not good. They beat us with sticksand hands. They fine us.’’

In Lumbini, respondents mentioned two other problems. First, the governmentdid not pay a fair price for the land when they resettled people. One respondent saidthe government paid just over half the amount they had promised. Second, thegovernment promised them work when they were resettled and people feel this hasnot materialized. Instead, residents perceive that people are brought in from otherplaces to work. As one respondent said, ‘‘They took our land and gave us littlemoney, not enough to buy other land. No work is available for us, only for peoplefrom outside.’’ One hotel manager concurred that outsiders are more likely to behired because, he said, local people cannot be relied on to show up for work regu-larly.

In Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, some people felt the benefits of the area are notfor local people but for the government and/or foreigners. As one respondent said,‘‘[The area is] not for us. It is for government people only, for their happiness’’(RBNP). Another said, ‘‘It’s for the government’s benefit. They took our land. It’snot our benefit’’ (LB).

123


Problems with wildlife

Another problem in Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, and to a limited extent inKaakri Bihaar, is crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife. People in somevillages, especially around Royal Bardia NP, keep watch all night to protect theircrops from wildlife. As one respondent said, ‘‘All animals are good to us, but we fearthem and they eat the crops in the fields’’ (RBNP).

In Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, some respondents mentioned a fear of thewildlife. In Royal Bardia NP, respondents specifically mentioned rhinoceros andelephants attacking people. These fears are justified. Between 1988 and 1994, tigers,rhinoceros, and elephants injured eight people and killed ten people (Bhatta 1994).In Lumbini, one person mentioned fearing snakes, which can be poisonous.

Predictors of attitude

Discriminant function analysis was used to distinguish between people who liked anddisliked each area. The analysis could not be conducted for Kaakri Bihaar because97% of the respondents like the area. Canonical correlations, which indicate thestrength of the relationship between the groups and the functions, were significantfor each of the other two areas. Post hoc followed by leave-one-out classificationallowed for approximately 85% correct classification in each of the two areas(Table 6).

The discriminant function coefficients are listed in order of the highest in absolutevalue for each significant contributor within each area in Table 7. These results showthat in both Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, recreation and esthetic benefits andconservation and ecosystem services were significantly associated with attitude.People who liked the areas were more likely to perceive recreation and estheticbenefits and conservation and ecosystem benefits. Additionally, in Royal Bardia NP,people who perceived extraction benefits were more likely to like the area andpeople with more education were less likely to like the area. In Lumbini, people withmore land were less likely to like the area.

Discussion

Overall, residents around Kaakri Bihaar were the most positive. The area had theleast negative impact on their lives and the most benefits. They are able to illegallyextract some of the resources that the area has and they are free to enter to enjoy therecreational and esthetic benefits of the area.

Table 6 Results of discriminant function analysisa

Protected area Canonicalcoefficient

(%) Classifiedcorrectly

(%) Cross-validated

Royal Bardia NationalPark

0.799 89.1 88.0

Lumbini 0.871 92.1 92.1

a Unable to conduct test of Kaakri Bihaar since 97% of respondents reported liking the area

123


Lumbini Bikaas is the most disliked because the area has had the most negativeimpact on residents’ lives: they lost their homes and land to the area and feel thatpromises of employment and development have been unfulfilled. The area, becauseof its small size, has few resource benefits to compensate, and the wildlife eat cropsand predate livestock. Despite this, people appreciate recreation and esthetic ben-efits of the area.

While Royal Bardia NP has many people citing problems that the park causes,particularly the lack of legal extraction, it has also the most respondents recognizingconservation and ecosystem services. Residents around Royal Bardia NP may resentbeing unable to legally extract resources more than in the other areas because thepark has the most potential for providing resources due to its size, and historicallyhas provided those resources more than the other areas. Its size probably also ex-plains why they are more likely to perceive conservation and ecosystem servicebenefits.

Although there are distinct differences among people’s perceptions of these areas,similarities among them highlight the role that different aspects, such as the size ofthe area and people’s access to them, management objectives, history, and tourism,play in their relationship with them.

In Royal Bardia NP and Kaakri Bihaar, conservation and ecosystem services aremore appreciated than in Lumbini. This may be because these areas, althoughKaakri Bihaar is relatively small compared to Royal Bardia NP, are large enough forpeople to perceive that the areas provide these benefits. Extraction is also animportant issue in these two areas. In Royal Bardia NP, the more commonly men-tioned issue is not being able to extract, while in Kaakri Bihaar, it is the benefit ofbeing able to extract that is mentioned.

It is also in Royal Bardia NP and Kaakri Bihaar that respondents mentioned visitsto the areas by the King and Queen. In Royal Bardia NP, one man mentioned thetime when the King would make annual visits to the national parks to demonstratehow important they were to Nepal and its people. In Kaakri Bihaar, one woman toldthe story of how the Queen visited and planted saplings with her own hands todemonstrate how special the area is.

Residents’ conflicts with protected area management play an important role inpeople’s relationship with the areas in Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, although thenature of the conflicts is different in each area. In Royal Bardia NP, individuals comeinto conflict with management over resource extraction, while in Lumbini Bikaas,residents perceive that management is responsible for resettlement of householdsand for not providing the jobs that were promised. Lumbini Bikaas provides a good

Table 7 Standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients (Coefficients are listed based onhighest absolute value)

Protected area Variable Function 1

Royal Bardia National Park Extraction benefits 0.677Recreation/esthetic benefits 0.612Conservation/ecosystem benefits 0.598Education –0.327

Lumbini Recreation/esthetic benefits 1.010Conservation/ecosystem benefits 0.485Landholding –0.305

123


example of how unfulfilled promises of jobs and development can negatively affectpeople’s relationship with a protected area. This negative impact has been describedin other areas. In Cross River National Park, Nigeria (Ite 1996), Machalilla NationalPark, Ecuador (Fiallo and Jacobson 1995), and Richtersveld National Park, SouthAfrica (Boonzaier 1996) residents’ perceptions of the park have been negativelyimpacted because they feel betrayed and cheated by promises of communitydevelopment, which have not materialized.

It is also in Royal Bardia NP and Lumbini, where the areas are managed anddeveloped to some extent for tourism, that a small number of respondents men-tioned that they felt that the area was created for the benefit of the government andthe outsiders who come to visit it. However, in Kaakri Bihaar, where the onlyvisitors who come are generally Nepalese visiting the area for other reasons, this wasnever mentioned.

While residents’ perceptions share similarities and differences, overall the attri-butes that people recognize are similar across all of the areas. Residents in all threeareas recognize a similar set of problems that the areas caused, including lack ofextraction and conflicts with management. They also recognize a similar set ofbenefits; the areas provide resources necessary for survival as well as recreational,esthetic, and environmental benefits. The importance of non-economic benefits isreflected in the results of the discriminant function analysis, where a perception ofconservation and ecosystem services and recreation and esthetics were significantpredictors of attitude. Their importance in predicting attitudes indicates thatdemographic and economic explanations capture some, but not all, of the relation-ship that people have with a protected area. This reinforces the need to understandresidents’ perceptions from their point of view, and not only based on the conflicts orthe economic costs and benefits of the area.

The non-economic benefits that people recognize provide an important comple-ment, or even an alternative, to economic benefits in gaining people’s support for aprotected areas (Norton 1989; Kaltenborg et al. 1999; Infield 2001). Often, theproblems that the areas cause local residents, such as crop damage and not being tolegally extract from the areas, have caused an emphasis to be placed on economicbenefits as the primary way to increase support for conservation of protected areas(Abel and Blaikie 1986; Hough 1988; Bhatta 1994; Durbin and Ralambo 1994;Studsrød and Wegge 1995; Tisdell 1995; Dearden et al. 1996). However, economicbenefits may be limited in their utility because they can be difficult to deliver,causing dissatisfaction, and negative feelings toward the protected area (Fiallo andJacobson 1995; Boonzaier 1996; Ite 1996; Allendorf 1999). Even when economicbenefits do result, attitudes toward protected areas do not necessarily improve(Walpole and Goodwin 2001). Non-economic benefits, as they do not need to bedelivered in the same way, can require less outside intervention and may moredirectly strengthen the relationship between residents and protected areas.

Non-utilitarian values can play in important role in people’s relationship withprotected areas (Raval 1994; Kuriyan 2002) and inclusion of those values may becritical to long-term conservation of those areas (Norton 1989; Infield 2001). How-ever, these values are rarely explored in studies to understand the park–peoplerelationship and the potential of non-economic benefits to strengthen or improve thepark–people relationship is rarely considered when designing conservation strategiesfor protected areas. Non-economic values, such as cultural, spiritual, and estheticvalues, are often undervalued, or even ignored, in conservation strategies.

123


Conclusion

People’s relationships with these three protected areas in Nepal are complex andmulti-faceted. Although these three protected areas differ in history, size, manage-ment objectives, and people’s overall attitude toward them, there are commonthemes in people’s perceptions. These themes are negative, such as a lack ofextraction and conflicts with management, and positive, such as the area providesresources necessary for survival and recreational, esthetic, and environmentalbenefits.

People’s positive perceptions played a particularly important role in their positiveattitudes toward the areas, suggesting that recognizing, incorporating, andstrengthening the non-utilitarian benefits that people perceive into strategies toimprove the park–people relationship may, in conjunction with more traditionalapproaches such as sustainable extraction and alternative livelihood strategies, provevaluable in improving local residents’ perceptions of these protected areas andstrengthening their support for the areas. These strategies may include, for example,field trips into the protected area for schools, women’s groups, and local leaders orenvironmental awareness programs that are based on and driven by the valuespeople already hold toward the protected area. Conservation strategies shouldrecognize both the positive and negative perceptions that residents have of protectedareas and work to foster and integrate diverse values in order to more accuratelyreflect the reality and complexity of people’s lives.

References

Abel N, Blaikie P (1986) Elephants, people, parks and development: the case of the Luangwa Valley,Zambia. Environ Manag 10(6):735–751

Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Prentice-HallInc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ

Allendorf TD (1999) Local residents’ perceptions of protected areas in Nepal: beyond conflicts andeconomics. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota

Bhatta SR (1994) Beginning with buffer zone management: a case study from Royal Bardia NationalPark, Nepal. Master’s thesis, Agricultural University of Norway

Boonzaier E (1996) Local responses to conservation in the Richtersveld National Park, South Africa.Biodivers Conserv 5:307–314

Brandon KE, Wells M (1992) Planning for people and parks—design dilemmas. World Dev 20:557–570

Dasmann RF (1984) The relationship between protected areas and indigenous people. In: McNeelyJA, Miller KR (eds) National Parks, conservation, and development: the role of protected areasin sustaining society. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC

de Boer WF, Baquete DS (1998) Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people inthe vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environ Conserv 25(3):208–218

Dearden P, Chettamart S, Emphandu D, Tanakanjana N (1996) National parks and hills tribes inNorthern Thailand: a case study of Doi Inthanon. Soc Nat Resour 9:125–141

Durbin JC, Ralambo JA (1994) The role of local people in the successful maintenance of protectedareas in Madagascar. Environ Conserv 21(2):115–120

Fiallo EA, Jacobson SK (1995) Local communities and protected areas: attitudes of rural residentstowards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ Conserv 22(3):241–249

Furze B, de Lacy T, Birckhead J (1996) Culture, conservation, and biodiversity. Wiley, New York,NY

123


Gillingham S, Lee PC (1999) The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the conservation attitudes oflocal people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ Conserv 26:218–228

Heinen JT (1993) Park-people relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal: a socio-economicanalysis. Environ Conserv 20(2):25–34

Hough JL (1988) Obstacles to effective management of conflicts between national parks and sur-rounding human communities in developing countries. Environ Conserv 15(2):129–136

Infield M (1988) Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation areain Natal, South Africa. Biol Conserv 45:21–46

Infield M (2001) Cultural values: a forgotten strategy for building community support for protectedareas in Africa. Conserv Biol 15:800–802

Ite U (1996) Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria. Environ Conserv23:351–357

Kaltenborg B, Riese H, Hundeide M (1999) National park planning and local participation: somereflections from a mountain region in southern Norway. Mt Res Dev 19:51–61

Kuriyan R (2002) Linking local perceptions of elephants and conservation: Samburu pastoralists inNorthern Kenya. Soc Nat Resour 15:949–957

Machlis GE, Tichnell DL (1985) The state of the world’s parks: an international assessment forresource management, policy and research. Westview, Boulder, CO

Maikhuri RK, Nautiyal S, Rao KS, Chandrasekhar K, Gavali R, Saxena KG (2000) Analysis andresolution of protected area-people conflicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. EnvironConserv 27:43–53

Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage Publi-cations, Newbury Park, CA

Muller-Boker U (1991) Knowledge and evaluation of the environment in traditional societies inNepal. Mt Res Dev 11(2):101–114

Nepal SJ, Weber KE (1995) The quandary of local park-people relations in Nepal’s royal ChitwanNational Park. Environ Manag 19:853–866

Newmark WD, Leonard NL, Sariko HI, Gamassa DM (1993) Conservation attitudes of local peopleliving adjacent to five protected areas in Tanzania. Biol Conserv 63:177–183

Norton BG (1989) The cultural approach to conservation biology. In: Western D, Pearl MC (eds)Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 241–246

Parry D, Campbell B (1992) Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife and its utilization inChobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environ Conserv 19(3):245–252

Pathak R (1995) Lumbini as disneyland. Himal 8(6):24–28Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park,

CARaval SR (1994) Wheel of life: perceptions and concerns of the resident peoples for Gir National

Park in India. Soc Nat Resour 7:305–320Stræde S, Helles F (2000) Park-people conflict resolution in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal:

buying time at high cost? Environ Conserv 27:368–381Studsrød JE, Wegge P (1995) Park-people relationships: the case of damage caused by park animals

around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environ Conserv 22(2):133–142Tisdell CA (1995) Issues in biodiversity conservation including the role of local communities.

Environ Conserv 22(3):216–228Upreti BN (1994) Royal Bardia national park. National conservation strategy implementation

Project. Kathmandu, Nepal, pp 59Walpole M, Goodwin H (2001) Local attitudes towards conservation and tourism around Komodo

National Park, Indonesia. Environ Conserv 28:160–166West PC, Brechin SR (1991) Resident peoples and national parks: social dilemmas and strategies in

international conservation. University of Arizona Press, TucsonWestern D (1989) Conservation without parks: wildlife in the rural landscape. In: Western D, Pearl

MC (eds) Conservation for the twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 158–165

World Conservation Monitoring Centre (2004) Protected areas and biodiversity: an overview of keyissues. World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge

Zube EH (1986) Local and extra-local perceptions of national parks and protected areas. LandscUrban Plan 13:11–17

123


residents’ attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern nepal

Documents