Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal

Kiran Paudyal,Himlal Baral,Benjamin Burkhard,Santosh P Bhandari,Rodney J Keenan

doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.007

Kiran Paudyal, Himlal Baral + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.007

Copy DOI

Abstract

Community-managed forests (CMF) provide vital ecosystem services (ES) for local communities. However, the status and trend of ES in CMF have not been assessed in many developing countries because of a lack of appropriate data, tools, appropriate policy or management framework. Using a case study of community-managed forested landscape in central Nepal, this paper aims to identify and map priority ES and assess the temporal change in the provision of ES between 1990 and 2013. Semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, transect walks and participatory mapping were used to identify and assess priority ES. The results indicated that community forestry has resulted in the substantial restoration of forests on degraded lands over the period of 1990–2013. Local community members and experts consider that this restoration has resulted in a positive impact on various ES beneficial for local, regional, national and international users. Priority ES identified in the study included timber, firewood, freshwater, carbon sequestration, water regulation, soil protection, landscape beauty as well as biodiversity. There were strong variations in the valuation of different ES between local people and experts, between genders and between different status and income classes in the local communities. In general, whereas CMF provide considerable benefits at larger scales, local people have yet to perceive the real value of these different ES provided by their forest management efforts. The study demonstrated that participatory tools, combined with free-access satellite images and repeat photography are suitable approaches to engage local communities in discussions regarding ES and to map and prioritise ES values.

Highlights

In recent years, community forestry (CF) has become a globally popular approach to forest management (Agrawal and Chhatre, 2006; Purnomo, 2012)
These ecosystem services (ES) were grouped according to The Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2010) into four categories: seven ES in provisioning services, seven in regulating services, two in habitat or supporting services and three in cultural services based on the knowledge and perception of local people and experts (Table 2)
Many ecosystem goods provided by Community-managed forests (CMF) are site-specific, e.g., timber, firewood, fodder and leaf litter are available to the people of the study area and those in the vicinity, whereas most of the regulating and cultural services are available to a wide range of people from within the Community Forests User Groups (CFUGs) and beyond

Summary

Introduction

Community forestry (CF) has become a globally popular approach to forest management (Agrawal and Chhatre, 2006; Purnomo, 2012). There have been few studies to assess and map ES supplied from CMF to date, in part because of a lack of clear policy directive or management framework and because of a lack of data, methods and tools in developing and data-poor countries, such as Nepal. These two challenges interact, and identifying, assessing and mapping ES from CMF are key requirements to creating an awareness of the values obtained from CMF amongst planners and decision makers and to providing a basis for policy and management (Burkhard et al, 2012; Crossman et al, 2013; MEA, 2005; Muhamad et al, 2014). ES quantification can improve efficiency investment to support improved forest management (Crossman et al, 2011; Crossman and Bryan, 2009; Farley and Costanza, 2010) and determine the extent to which compensation should be paid for the loss of ES in liability regimes (Payne and Sand, 2011)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion