An econometric model linking user household’s socio-economic characteristics and their fuel-wood collection patterns from local common property forests was examined in a highly heterogeneous (>60% by caste and wealth status) Terai community of Nepal. The cross-sectional analysis provides evidence in favor of the hypothesis that socio-economic inequalities within the group are inexorably associated with the ability of the households in resource use. In general, it is evident that household’s wealth status (coefficient for rich = -0.420; p = 0.019), proximity to the forest (coefficient for distance = -0.280; p = 0.083), forest visit (coefficient for frequent forest visit = +0.257; p = 0.066) exert a strong influence on appropriating fuel-wood from the forest. Above all, income status of households was found to be key determinant of household’s fuel-wood collection from the forest. Poor households were highly dependent on the forests for fuel-wood (average annual extraction = 4561.3 kg/household) in order to sustain their day-to-day livelihood. The high dependence of poor coupled with their large population size in the region (>27%) will possibly cause forest degradation in future. Therefore, policy must be directed towards reducing fuel-wood dependency of poor households by lifting their economic status so that they can substitute fuel-wood in day-to-day use. A broader policy implication of our analysis is to consider socio-economic heterogeneity of society and household’s dependency on natural resources prior to devolution of management rights to local level.

the copy of the article
Sapkota sir....it would be nice if you post the full article..DS

Very Nice paper ,I read the
Very Nice paper ,I read the whole paper.I also cited your paper in my thesis.Now all of your paper in scientific journal.Keep it up
Radha

nice article
Indraji,
Well done!
This article can support to make good decision for policy makers of Nepalese forestry sector.
----
Diwakar

Thanks Diwakar JI for your
Thanks Diwakar JI for your compliments...how are you?

Comments (4)