residents’ perceptions of royal bardia national park, nepa (use depth interview)
Post on 03-Apr-2018
215 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
1/8
Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340
Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal
Teri D. Allendorfa,, James L.D. Smith a, Dorothy H. Anderson b
a Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USAb Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
Received 8 April 2006; received in revised form 25 January 2007; accepted 31 January 2007
Available online 8 March 2007
Abstract
The complex relationship between residents and protected areas continues to be an obstacle to successful conservation of protected areas. One ofthe key components of this relationship is local residents perceptions of protected areas. This study explores key issues in the relationship between
residents and Royal Bardia National Park in western Nepal. We discuss residents conflicting perceptions of benefits and problems of the area,
their perceptions of entities such as park management that affect their relationship with the park, and their perceptions of NGOs and associated
conservation and development projects.
2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Attitudes; Protected areas; Parkpeople relationships; Perceptions; Conservation; Protected area management; Nepal
1. Introduction
Protected areas, such as national parks and reserves, are criti-
cal components of national biodiversity conservation programs.However, a host of problems have hindered their effective-
ness in protecting biodiversity (Newmark, 1996; Woodroffe
and Ginsberg, 1998). One of these problems is the relation-
ship between protected areas and local residents. Many have
argued that conservation strategies must address local residents
concerns in order to conserve protected areas over the long-
term (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995; Furze et al., 1996; Hough
and Sherpa, 1989; McNeely and Miller, 1984; Newmark et al.,
1993; Zube, 1986). However, this relationship continues to be
an obstacle to successful conservation, in part, because the com-
plex relationships between people and protected areas are still
poorly understood and the connections to broader issues often
remain unacknowledged (Berkes, 2004; Brosius and Russell,
2003; Brown, 2002; Wilshusen et al., 2002).
Many approaches have been taken to understand the
Parkpeople relationship. These approaches include, for exam-
ple, describing residents resource use of protected areas
Correspondingauthor. Present address: 110Elm St., Mazomanie, WI 53560,
USA. Tel.: +1 608 795 4225.
E-mail address: teriallendorf@yahoo.com (T.D. Allendorf).
(Brown, 1997; Dearden et al., 1996; De Boer and Baquete, 1998;
Maikhuri et al., 2000; Nepal and Weber, 1995; Sharma and
Shaw, 1993; Straede and Helles, 2000) and crop damage and
livestock depredation by wildlife (Gadd, 2005; Heinen, 1993;Hill, 1998; Kharel, 1997; Nepal and Weber, 1995; Newmark et
al., 1993; Oli et al., 1994; Parry and Campbell, 1992; Sekhar,
1998;Sharma, 1990;Studsrd and Wegge, 1995). More recently,
residents perceptions of conservation and development projects
associated with protected areas (Bauer, 2003; Ite, 1996; Jim
and Xu, 2002; Mehta and Kellert, 1998; Mkanda and Munthali,
1994; Sekhar, 2003; Straede and Helles, 2000; Wainwright and
Wehrmeyer, 1998; Walpole and Goodwin, 2001) and the effect
of projects on attitudestoward protected areas (Boonzaier, 1996;
Gillingham and Lee, 1999; Infield and Namara, 2001; Sekhar,
2003; Songorwa, 1999) have been considered. Some research
has also considered the social context of residents living adja-
cent to protected areas (Abel and Blaikie, 1986; Brown, 1997;
Daniels and Bassett, 2002; Fortin and Gagnon, 1999; Maikhuri
et al., 2000; Slater, 2002).
Resource use, wildlife damage, and the effect of conservation
and development projects are all important ways of understand-
ing the relationship that residents have with protected areas.
However, underlying all of these aspects of the relationship, and
fundamental to finding waysto improve the relationship, are peo-
ples perceptions of the protected areas. Peoples perceptions are
critical in designing appropriate strategies and policies in order
0169-2046/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.015
mailto:teriallendorf@yahoo.comhttp://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.015http://localhost/var/www/apps/conversion/tmp/scratch_3/dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.015mailto:teriallendorf@yahoo.com -
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
2/8
34 T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340
to address local residents needs and expectations (Akama et al.,
1995; Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995; Heinen, 1993; Infield, 1988;
Ite, 1996; Mehta and Heinen, 2001; Mukherjeeand Borad,2004;
Sah and Heinen, 2001; Weladji et al., 2003).
Using a qualitative approach to understand the relationship
that residents have with protected areas in this study, we define
the relationship between people and Royal Bardia National Park
in residents terms and explore key issues in the relationship
from their perspectives. Qualitative methods are better suited
to reveal the nature of protected area issues from the perspec-
tives of residents and are more appropriate in an exploratory
study, such as this, for revealing a range of issues and perspec-
tives (Raval, 1994). In this paper, our objectives are to describe
and clarify residents attitudes regarding the costs and benefits
of RBNP, explore the effects of peoples perceptions of park
management and the government on their relationship with the
park, and examine peoples perceptions of non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) conservation projects. These objectives
arise from the results of a preliminary open-ended survey con-
ducted by the first author to determine residents perceptions ofthe benefits and problems of the Royal Bardia National in Nepal
(Allendorf,2006), which raisedthese three areasof further study.
First, respondents held conflicting perceptions of the pro-
tected area in that they reported both liking and disliking
that park management did not allow people to extract natural
resources, such as fuelwood and fodder, from the park. Other
studies have shown that while people do generally support
conservation of protected areas (De Boer and Baquete, 1998;
Mehta and Heinen, 2001; Mukherjee and Borad, 2004; Picard,
2003; Weladji et al., 2003), they resent management policies
that restrict their livelihood activities within the protected areas
(Bauer, 2003; Infield, 1988).Second, although the survey asked people their perceptions of
the benefits andproblems that thepark caused, people responded
by describing their perceptions of other entities, such as park
management, the military that guards the park, and the govern-
ment. Previous research has shown that one of the most critical
determinants of peoples attitudes toward protected areas is their
relationships with and perceptions of management (Holmes,
2003). For example, a poor relationship with park staff is often
associated with negative attitudes toward the protected area
(Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995).
Third, respondents did not mention entities that they might
have been expected to link to the park. Although non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) had been implementing
conservation and development projects in the area, no one
mentioned these NGOs or their projects either as benefits or
problems. Given that these projects are implemented in order to
improve peoples attitudes toward the park and decrease their
illegal extraction, it was notable that people were not directly
linking these projects to the park.
2. Royal Bardia National Park
Royal Bardia National Park (RBNP), located in the south-
western lowlands, or terai, of Nepal (Fig. 1), was established in
1969 as a hunting reserve. It became a national park in 1989. The
968km2 area is managed by the Department of National Parks
and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC). The park authority con-
sists of a chief warden, three assistant wardens, and a senior
warden in charge of the eastern park sub-quarters. Rangers,
senior game scouts, and game scouts rotate duty at posts located
throughout the park. Like most national parks and reserves in
Nepal, the Royal Nepalese Army is responsible for guarding
the park and enforcing its rules and regulations, including con-
trolling poachers, stopping illegal fishing, checking boundaries,preventing encroachment into the park, and preventing livestock
grazing and extraction of resources by area residents. The army
Fig. 1. Map of Royal Bardia National Park in western Nepal.
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
3/8
T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340 35
operates independently from theDNPWCat each protectedarea,
and the extent of coordination and cooperation between the two
is at the discretion of the commanding officer at the army post.
At the time of the study, two army companies (320 individu-
als) were posted at 16 guard posts and in the park headquarters
for assignments of two years. Furthermore, the army battal-
ions and their commanders that rotate through RBNP every two
years have little incentive to build long-term relationships with
local communities. A common perception in the military is that
an assignment at RBNP is a lucrative posting because of the
potential income from bribes from local people and outsiders
who want access to subsistence resources and more valuable
resources, such as timber.
Extraction of natural resources from RBNP is illegal except
for the cutting of thatch and other grasses, which is allowed for
a 1014 day period once a year, and for which residents must
pay a modest fee. Extraction of thatch is an important economic
park benefit to people. In 1992, the worth of the thatch and other
grasses extracted was substantial (565.50 NR per household)
compared to the average monthly income for rural households(1192NR)(Stre, 1993). Fishing, for which a permitis required,
is also allowed. A number of canals inside RBNP connect the
Geruwa and Babai Rivers to adjacent agriculture fields. These
canals were built by local residents before the establishment of
the park. People are allowed to enter RBNP to control the flow
of water and to maintain the canals (Upreti, 1994). It should
be noted, however, that residents do commonly illegally gather
fuelwoodand timber, as well as other non-timber forestproducts.
When the initial survey was conducted in 1995, only one non-
governmental organization (NGO), the King Mahendra Trust for
Nature Conservation (KMTNC), was conducting development
and conservation projects, including health, community forestry,animal husbandry, and nature guide and lodge management
training, with residents living around the park. It maintained
its headquarters adjacent to one of the villages where interviews
were conducted. One other organization, Women in Environ-
ment, was implementing education and daycare programs in one
of the communities. At the time of follow-up interviews in 1997,
so many projects existed in the area that a management struc-
ture called the Bardia Integrated Conservation Project (BICP)
and administered by the Department of National Parks and
Wildlife Conservation, had been created to coordinate project
activities. Organizations active in the area included KMTNC,
the UNDP Parks and People Project, WWF-Nepal, and CARE-
Nepal, whichwere all conductingconservationand developmentactivities.
3. Methods
Thirty-five in-depth interviews were conducted in three com-
munities adjacent to RBNP. Since the overall objectives of this
exploratory study were to describe perceptions rather than pre-
dict phenomena, residents were not randomly sampled (Miles
and Huberman, 1994). Initial interviews were conducted with
people who had participated in the previous survey. A snow-
ball method, where people were asked to suggest other people
whomight be willing to be interviewed, was used (Patton, 1990).
In this way, the chances of finding interviewees who would yield
richand informative interviewswere increased. Some interviews
were also opportunistic in that some individualsasked to be inter-
viewed. Interviews were conducted with 18 men and 17 women,
ranging in age from 18 to 70 years, including seven Tharu, in
three communities. Tharu are the indigenous group of the terai
and inner terai and pahadi, or hill people, migrated from the
hills during the 1950s and 1960s after eradication of malaria
in the terai. Tharu have traditionally been more reliant on the
resources of the forest and on a wider variety of species than
pahadi (Muller-Boker, 1991).
The communities were chosen based on their distance from
park headquarters and government forests in order to capture the
range of relationships that people have with the protected area in
terms of their access to natural resources and their relationship
with park management (Fig. 1). The distance from park head-
quarters also correlates with the number of NGO projects in the
community, with the closest community have the largest number.
All of the communities had been visited during the preliminary
survey. The first community, Madhela, is located about one kilo-meter from park headquarters along the southern border of the
park.Residentshave legal access to degraded government forest.
The second, Karmala, is located about five kilometers from park
headquarters at the southern edge of the park; residents here also
have legal access to degraded government forest. Residents of
Madhela and Karmala include both tharu and pahadi. The third
community, Chepang, is on the eastern edge of RBNP; residents
have easy legal access to healthy government forests on both the
north and south sides of the village. Residents of Chepang are
pahadi.
Interviews were based on an interview guide,an outline of the
set of issues to be explored with each respondent (Patton, 1990).The guide coverednumeroustopics, of which three arediscussed
in this paper. Topics included the individuals history in the area,
their reasons for moving there if they were a migrant, and their
feelings about thearea as a place to live; their useand perceptions
of RBNP and their perceptions of changes over time in their
relationship with the park; their impressions of how others in
their community felt about the park; their perceptions of park
management, the NGOs working in the area, and tourists and
researchers such as myself; their understanding of relationship
between thegovernmentand thepark; andtheir understanding of
the purpose and goals of the NGO projects in the area. General
questions were asked about each topic, followed by probing
questions to clarify or gain more understanding.Interviews were transcribed and translated into English by
the first author with help from native Nepali speakers. Text
was analyzed using a content analysis approach (Patton, 1990)
and the program QSR NUD*IST (Non-numerical Unstructured
Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) 3.0.4. First, interviews
were coded according to the interview topics described above.
Additional coding was conducted to identify themes within the
research objectives. For example, to fulfill the first objective
of this study, to explore the beliefs that people have concern-
ing Royal Bardia NP, analysis began with coding perceived
attributes of the park. After coding attributes, statements that
linked different attributes together or that talked about the same
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
4/8
36 T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340
attribute in both negative and positive ways were coded. Simi-
lar procedures were used to code the other research questions.
Coding was cross-checked by a colleague familiar with coding
procedures who had no direct experience with this research.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Perceptions of RBNP
Peoples perceptions of RBNP are diverse, complex, and
often contradictory. Often, people are neither completely in
favor of nor opposed to the park. For example, on one hand,
wildlife eats residents crops and residents access to resources
is restricted because of the park. On the other hand, the area pro-
vides resources (legally and illegally), environmental services,
and aesthetic benefits (Table 1). One resident said,
The only problem is that [wildlife] eat fields here. Other-
wise, the park is good. It is good to take care of the wildlife.
Different types of animals are here, which we can see them. Itis good. The park has done nothing to us and jungle is every-
where. We have firewood, we have everything. For bathing,
there is the river. The park is not difficult for us, except that
the rhinos are nearby and come to eat the fields.
The inability to extract legally both enhances and diminishes
the economic value of RBNP for residents. Although people
resentaspects of management that limit their accessto resources,
theyrecognizethat management doesconservethe resourcesthat
might otherwise be consumed by them or others. People dislike
not having free access to resources in the park, such as fuelwood
and fodder, but theyalsoknow that if it were an open access area,
people would be extracting a greater quantity of resources andpeople from greater distances away would be extracting. As one
man said: Open forest would be finished in one day. Now it is
closed. People steal, but, at the same time, they are afraid [to
steal].
Although residents may dislike the cost of the park to them-
selves, they recognize the parks conservation value at the
individual and local, as well as national and global, scales. A
Table 1
Positive and negative attributes of the forest and wildlife of RBNP
Value Positive attributes Negative attributes
ForestEconomic Extraction No legal extraction
No legal grazing
Recreational Breezes/shade Walk Restricted entry
Aesthetic To see Beauty
Environmental Clean air
Clean water
Healthy
No pollution
Wildlife
Economic Crop damage
Livestock depredation
Recreational To see Entertaining Fear
Information Educational
Bequest For future generations
common saying in Nepal is Nepalko dhan hariyo ban, which
means, Nepals wealth is green forest. Wildlife is appreci-
ated not only for personal enjoyment, but also because it is the
countrys wealth. As one resident explained,
Tomorrows generation will not be able to see wildlife that
we can see now. How many animals are already finished?
Let us talk about rhinos. We know how rhinos look, we haveseen them, but in our childrens time, how will they know
how rhinos are? They will not know except from books.
4.2. Relationship with RBNP management and attitude
toward government
People appreciate that management protects the park, includ-
ing resources and wildlife, and even wish that management
did a better job: Even with the guards, the jungle is being
degraded. People also feel that the military presence provides
some security to residents and communities and they recognize
that guards and park staff sometimes provide help to local resi-dents, for example by using their vehicles to take a sick person
to the hospital. However, people do not like being fined and
punished for entering the park, although they may feel that rea-
sonable punishment is justified. Punishments people described
for illegally extracting include fines, imprisonment, beatings,
and rape. Guards are more lenient with people they know or
with whom they feel an affiliation, such as ethnicity. As one
Tharu woman explained: The tharu police consider the tharu.
The pahadi try to snatch whatever we have, the tharu try to
let us go. People they know they try to let go, otherwise they
take them [to the guard station]. It is important to note that
residents do not clearly distinguish between the game scouts
and the military guards and some people believe that the parkis the armys, referring to it as the forest of the barracks
(Table 2).
Local people know thatcorruptionexists within parkmanage-
ment. Residents resent that they are not even allowed to extract
Table 2
Positive and negative perceptions of RBNP management, the government, and
NGOs
Positive Negative
Management/guards
Protects park Not protecting well enough
Provides help/security to residents Reputation for corruptionFine, arrest, abuse residents
Government
Conserves RBNP Corrupt
Patron of people Self-interested
Ineffectual
NGOs
Promote community development
and empowerment
Unevenly distributed benefits within
community
Bring money into community Socio-economic disparity between
project staff and communities
Lack of coordination with local
institutions
Short-term solutions
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
5/8
T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340 37
dead and fallen wood for household use while officials sell large
amounts for personal gain (Ghimire, 1994). According to resi-
dents, the game scouts have been known to cut trees in the park
to sell as lumber to wealthy people in other areas of Nepal and
in India. One resident made the comment that: They taught us
to steal.
Despite this, people support the government and its creation
of the park because there is an understanding of the benefits of
forest in Nepal: The government has tried a lot for the animals.
There is benefit for the government because Nepals wealth is
green forest. However, people still have a traditional belief that
the government should play the role of patron to its citizens.
In the case of RBNP, residents feel that the government has an
obligation to mitigate the negative effects of the park. As one
man said about park-related problems, such as crop damage by
wildlife: We should not run away, we should ask, we have
to get promise from government. One woman explained that
the government has a responsibility to care for both people and
wildlife:
The park is the governments, people cant kill wildlife.
Animals and people are equal. The government must take
care of wildlife, and it must also take care of us people. I
love the animals. . .. However, there is damage to fields [from
wildlife]. We should be far away so that we do not disturb
the animals.
The feeling that the government is the patron of the people
arises out of the relationship that people have traditionally had
with the monarchy, whose role is perceived as taking care of the
people. In return, people feel they must support the government
and its decisions. When people were asked how they felt about
the park, some people responded that if the government thinksthe park is good, so must they. For some people, the feeling
that the government decisions must be respected is sincere in
a positive, respectful way. For others, it arises out a feeling of
powerlessness to help themselves andresentment at a reliance on
the government that is viewed as corrupt. Massive foreign aid at
the national level contrasted with a lack of facilities in the com-
munities, such as electricity, roads, and health posts, has created
a negative attitude toward the government. People consider the
government corrupt, weak, self-interested, and ineffectual. As
one resident said, Everyone watches his or her own stomachs.
The leaders only look out for themselves; they dont look out for
the villages. They believe that the government only listens to
those who are wealthy and have power. As one man said, Thegovernment doesnt look after the poor, it has bad eyes.
An individuals perceptions of the government can affect the
expression of her/his perceptions toward RBNP. In areas where
land has not been officially measured and registered by the gov-
ernment, people fear that their land could be taken away from
them to increase the park size. Thus, in Chepang, one woman,
when asked if she believed that wildlife needed some place to
live, said: This happens. If we say animals need a place, we
think the government will move us from here. This demon-
strates that people may be cautious about emphasizing benefits
of the park if they perceive that those comments could be used
to their disadvantage. Other people would like to be resettled
because they recognize the value of the park, at least for the
government, but feel like it is only fair for the government to
take care of them also. Some individuals perceive that those who
were resettled from the area when the park was extended in 1989
received a good deal. Some want to be resettled out of anger and
resentment at the government for not being a responsible patron.
4.3. Perceptions of non-governmental organizations
As noted earlier, in a previous survey, people living adjacent
toRBNPdonotmakeaconnectionbetweentheparkandtheben-
efits that the associated projects have provided, such as a health
post, lumber for schools and bridges, and community commit-
tees. The reasons for this disconnect between NGO activities
and the park is due partly to the fact that people do not under-
stand the relationshipbetween the NGOs andconservation of the
park, nor can people necessarily distinguish differences among
the park authority, the NGOs, and the hotels, much less among
the NGOs themselves. The number of different NGOs working
around and in the park makes it difficult for people to differ-entiate between them. One woman commented: All [NGOs]
are the same. Part of the confusion about the NGOs and hotels
may be because they both get preferential treatment from park
management. For example, both are allowed to cut thatch before
local residents, and they are allowed to use wood from the park
for their buildings. One hotel has a license from the government,
which allows it to run a camp within the park.
An additional problem in a developing country such as Nepal,
where foreign aid has played such an important role, is that
people have a feeling of entitlement. They know they are per-
ceived as poor by other nations who give large amounts of
funding, so they feel they deserve development activities. Peo-ples awareness of therole that foreign aidplaysin their countrys
development is illustrated by one residents response to a ques-
tion about the role NGOs play in the community. He responded
not with a general response about the type of projects or the ben-
efits, but with the exact amount of money that a project had given
to make a nursery plantation. This sense of entitlement hasgrown
out of Nepals long history of foreign aid. In the forestry sec-
tor alone, by 1987, 38 international agencies and organizations,
compared to three Nepali groups, were conducting projects and
research in Nepal (Tinker, 1994).
Although the link between the park and projects is weak, res-
idents who have participated in the community groups formed
by the NGOs recognize that the groups have benefited the com-munities in meaningful ways. One wealthy and educated man
explained that he learned from the NGO that communities need
to be self-dependent, not relying on outside organizations or
governmentto help them solve problems.Womenactive on com-
mittees feel that they arelearningto work together andto be more
independent through NGO projects (Table 2).
In contrast, the perspectives of one resident and her husband
reveal a number of ways that residents can view NGO activities
negatively. They resented unevenly distributed benefits within
the community and the high socio-economic status of project
workers. They felt more local people should be hired within
the projects and hotels. They disliked that NGOs do not always
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
6/8
38 T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340
workcooperativelywith already-existing institutions. They were
referring to a health post that an NGO had built that was just
down the road from a government health post. The NGO health
post was relatively well-stocked, while the government health
post was not. They doubted the usefulness of NGO projects,
which they perceived as short-term solutions. They also felt that
often the NGOs looked out for their own benefit first. For exam-
ple, the couple said they chose tiles to roof their home because
there was not enough thatch available from the park because
hotels and NGOs are allowed to cut first before local residents
can enter. Despite these negative comments, this couple did not
rule out that the NGOs might prove to be beneficial in the future.
5. Discussion
Residents hold a diversity of values toward RBNP that are
bothpositiveand negative. They appreciatethat the areaprovides
natural resources (legally and illegally), environmental services,
and aesthetic benefits. They appreciate these benefits both for
themselves and their communities, but they also appreciate thatthe PA benefits the country. These perceptions can seem to be
conflicting. For example, residents simultaneously consider the
illegality of extraction to be both a benefit and a problem. While
people resent not being able to extract the resources they wish,
or in the case of thatch, to the extent that they wish, they do
appreciate that extraction is limited and resourcesare conserved.
In RBNP, peoples perceptions of the park are linked closely
with their perceptions of park management and the military that
guard the park. Other studies have also found peoples relation-
ship with park management to be important (Holmes, 2003) and
some studies have found that peoples attitudes toward manage-
ment can be even more negative than their attitudes toward theprotected areas (Infield, 1988; Newmark et al., 1993). In a sum-
mary of factors influencing attitude toward protected areas, a
poor relationship with park staff was the only variable that was
always associated with negative perceptions of protected areas
in all six studies reviewed (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995).
Our results highlight the complexity of the community-
management relationship and demonstrate that the role the
guards play in protecting the park is not only a negative one.
In fact, residents have conflicted perceptions of park manage-
ment and the military that guard it. For example, although they
dislike it, many accept that punishments for illegal extraction
are justified. However, not surprisingly, they resent that the
park management, military, and hotels are allowed to extractresources from the park that they themselves are not. If res-
idents perceive that other entities are gaining more extractive
benefits from the park than they are, it weakens peoples rela-
tionship with management and makes it difficult for people to
understand and support conservation of the park. It is impor-
tant that residents perceive park managements primary duty as
protecting the park and not legally or illegally gaining benefits
themselves.
This study also highlights that it is not only peoples percep-
tions of park management that affect their attitude, it is also their
perceptions of the government. People can and do understand
the reasons that the government has set aside strictly protected
areas and they understand the bigger picture that conservation
plays in the protecting Nepals national heritage. However, this
can be good or bad depending on how they perceive the gov-
ernment and whether they respect it or view it as corrupt. In the
case of RBNP, peoples memories of the king and his support
of protected areas is important to their positive perceptions of
RBNP, while their perceptions of the current government, par-
ticularly local officials, as corrupt have a negative effect on their
attitude toward RBNP.
The fact that residents rarely discussed NGOs or their work
as a benefit of RBNP has disturbing implications for the idea
that people will support conservation of protected areas if they
gain tangible benefits from it. In the case of RBNP, it is clear that
park management andNGOs shouldbe clearer about thepurpose
and goals of the projects. However, while it is recognized that
conservation and development projects have generally done an
inadequatejob of linking conservation and development (Heinen
and Mehta, 2000), one aspect that has not been discussed much
is that often NGOs deliberately do not link them, at least in the
initial stages of the project, as was the case with some projects inthe area. Often NGOs are trying to build support for themselves
by supporting development activities that are not directly linked
to conservation of the park (Brandon and Wells, 1992). Their
logic is that if they provide programs for residents that meet
residents needs then residents will be more willing to work
with NGOs on projects that meet the parks needs. However
logical this may seem to NGOs, if residents are not aware of the
NGOs full agenda, then NGO activities are unlikely to motivate
residents to support conservation farther down the road. In the
worse case scenario, residents may actually feel manipulated
once the NGO agenda becomes clear.
On the other hand, even if the links between conservationand development are made direct and explicit, the ramifica-
tions of linking them should be carefully considered. While
it may improve peoples attitudes toward RBNP if they con-
sidered project development activities to be benefits of the
park, the long-term effects of making this link need to be
carefully considered. If peoples expectations of development
benefits are not fulfilled, their attitude toward the park may
be negatively impacted. In Cross River National Park, Nige-
ria (Ite, 1996), Machalilla National Park, Ecuador (Fiallo
and Jacobson, 1995), and Richtersveld National Park, South
Africa (Boonzaier, 1996) residents perceptions of the park
have been negatively impacted because they feel betrayed and
cheated by promises of community development which have notmaterialized.
Another aspect of the community-NGO relationship that is
often overlooked is peoples relationships with and perceptions
of the NGO staff. In the case of RBNP, inherent tensions exist
in peoples relationships with NGOs because the relationship is
shaped by the power structure inherent within it. NGO personnel
come from outside, descend upon the community, and often take
for granted that local people want them to come and want their
help. These factors cause tensions between residents and NGOs,
which NGO employees may underestimate because of peoples
appreciation of the projects and NGO efforts to help the local
communities.
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
7/8
T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340 39
Ultimately, it is important that NGOs from the outset help
build support for the park as an institution and its staff, or
they may be undermining their own less explicit long term
goal of making the park a strong conservation institution.
NGO projects should be clearly integrated into park manage-
ment goals. Management, NGOs, and residents should clearly
understand how NGO projects, even if focused on community
development, fulfill conservation objectives. The case of RBNP
highlights the need for good communication between manage-
ment and residents. People should understand NGOs agendas
and be made equal partners in terms of choosing and shaping
projects.
This study predates the creation of the Buffer Zone Manage-
ment Regulations, which among other things, allowed for the
spending of 30-50% of the funds earned by parks and reserves to
be used for community development with mechanisms for com-
munities to participate in deciding how the money gets spent.
While the results of this study are important unto themselves in
the larger context of people-park relationships, a similar study
conducted now after buffer zone management implementationwould be extremely interesting and useful.
6. Conclusion
In RBNP, while people resent that they cannot freely extract
from the park, they also recognize that protection of the park
is good not only for conservation in general, but also because
it serves to conserve the resources upon which they depend.
Peoples perceptions of RBNP are strongly connected to their
perceptions of other entities that they associate with RBNP,
particularly park management, but also including the govern-
ment more broadly. Finally, the role of community developmentprojects, which are meant to improve the relationship between
people and protected areas and ultimately help conserve the area
more effectively, is not necessarily one that people easily rec-
ognize. These three issues explored in the context of RBNP
have important implications for Parkpeople relationships more
generally.
First, the diverse, and possibly conflicting, perceptions that
people hold toward protected areas should be recognized and
understood. Management should not only work to meet peo-
ples extraction needs if possible, but also take advantage of and
strengthen peoples understanding of the need to eliminate or
mitigate extraction from protected areas as well as build on their
understanding of the importance of conservation of the area.Conservation strategies that foster and integrate the diverse val-
ues that people hold will more accurately reflect the reality and
complexity of peoples lives and, therefore, promise the best
hope of sustaining protected areas and communities over the
long-term.
Second, improving peoples attitudes toward management
may be one of the most critical ways to improve the parkpeople
relationship. Management must be perceived by local people
as trying to protect the park while working to have good rela-
tionships with local people. No matter how much residents
understand and support conservation, it will be difficult for them
to support PA management and the PA itself if they feel man-
agement is gaining its own benefits from the park at the expense
of local communities.
Third, NGO projects should be clearly integrated into park
management goals. PA management and NGOs mustbe straight-
forward with communities about their own goals and objectives
from the very beginning of projects. They need to communicate
clearly to communities how projects, even if focused on commu-
nity development, fulfill conservation objectives. Additionally,
NGOs should build support for the park as an institution and for
park staff or they may be undermining their own less explicit
long term goal of making a protected area a strong conservation
institution.
References
Abel, N., Blaikie, P., 1986. Elephants, people, parks and development: the case
of the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Environ. Manage. 10, 735751.
Akama, J.S., Lant, C.L., Burnett, G.W., 1995. Conflicting attitudes toward state
wildlife conservation programs in Kenya. Soc. Nat. Resour. 8, 133144.
Allendorf, T.D., 2006. Residents attitudes toward three protected areas in
southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10531-
006-9092-z. Published online Oct. 27, 2006.
Bauer, H., 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon.
Environ. Conserv. 30, 175181.
Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18,
621630.
Boonzaier, E., 1996. Local responses to conservation in the Richtersveld
National Park, South Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 5, 307314.
Brandon, K., Wells, M., 1992. Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas.
World Dev. 20, 557570.
Brosius, J.P., Russell, D., 2003. Conservation from above: an anthropological
perspective on transboundary protected areas and ecoregional planning. J.
Sustain. Forest. 17 (1/2), 3965.
Brown,K., 1997. Plaintales fromthe grasslands: extraction, value andutilization
of biomass in Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Biodivers. Conserv. 6,
5974.
Brown, K., 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J. 168,
617.
Daniels, R., Bassett, T.J., 2002. The spaces of conservation and development
around Lake Nakuru National Park Kenya. Profess. Geogr. 54, 481490.
Dearden, P., Chettamart, S., Emphandu, D., Tanakanjana, N., 1996. National
parks and hills tribes in Northern Thailand: a case study of Doi Inthanon.
Soc. Nat. Resour. 9, 125141.
De Boer, W.F., Baquete, D.S., 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and
attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve,
Mozambique. Environ. Conserv. 25, 208218.
Fiallo, E.A., Jacobson, S.K., 1995. Localcommunitiesand protected areas, Atti-
tudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park,
Ecuador. Environ. Conserv. 22, 241249.
Fortin, M., Gagnon, C., 1999. An assessment of social impacts of national parkson communities in Quebec, Canada. Environ. Conserv. 26, 200211.
Furze, B., de Lacy, T., Birckhead, J., 1996. Culture, Conservation, and Biodi-
versity. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Gadd, M.E., 2005. Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in
Laikipia, Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 32, 5063.
Ghimire, K.B., 1994. Parks and peoplelivelihood issues in national parks
management in Thailand and Madagascar. Dev. Change 25, 195229.
Gillingham, S., Lee, P.C., 1999. The impact of wildlife-related benefits on the
conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve,
Tanzania. Environ. Conserv. 26, 218228.
Heinen, J.T., 1993. Park people relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve,
Nepala socio-economic analysis. Environ. Conserv. 20, 2534.
Heinen, J.T., Mehta, J.N., 2000. Emergingissues in legal and procedural aspects
of buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. J. Environ. Dev.
9 (1), 4567.
-
7/28/2019 Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepa (Use depth interview)
8/8
40 T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340
Hill, C.M., 1998. Conflicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo
Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environ. Conserv. 25, 244250.
Holmes, C.M., 2003. The influence of protected area outreach on conservation
attitudes and resource use patterns: a case study from western Tanzania.
Oryx 20, 305315.
Hough, J.L., Sherpa, M.N., 1989. Bottom up vs. basic needsintegrating
conservation and development in the Annapurna and Michiru Mountain
Conservation Areas of Nepal and Malawi. Ambio 18, 434441.
Infield, M., 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and alocal conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 45, 2146.
Infield, M., Namara, A., 2001. Community attitudes and behavior toward con-
servation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around
Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35, 4860.
Ite, U.E., 1996.Community perceptions of theCrossRiver National Park, Nige-
ria. Environ. Conserv. 23, 351357.
Jim, C.Y., Xu, S.S.W., 2002. Stifled stakeholders and subdued participation:
interpreting local responses toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in South
China. Environ. Manage. 30, 327341.
Kharel, F.R., 1997. Agricultural crop and livestock depredation by wildlife in
Langtang National Park, Nepal. Mount. Res. Dev. 17, 127134.
Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Chandrasekhar, K., Gavali, R., Saxena,
K.G., 2000. Analysis and resolution of protected areapeople conflicts in
Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environ. Conserv. 27, 4353.
McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R. (Eds.), 1984. National Parks, Conservation, andDevelopment: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithso-
nian Institute Press, Washington, DC.
Mehta, J.N., Heinen, J.T., 2001. Does community-based conservation shape
favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environ.
Manage. 28, 165177.
Mehta, J.N., Kellert, S.R., 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based con-
servationpolicyand programmes in Nepal: a casestudy in the Makalu-Barun
Conservation Area. Environ. Conserv. 25, 320333.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded
Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Mkanda, F.X., Munthali, S.M., 1994. Public attitudesand needs around Kasungu
National Park, Malawi. Biodivers. Conserv. 3, 2944.
Mukherjee, A., Borad, C.K., 2004. Integrated approach towards conservation of
Gir National Park: the last refuge of Asiatic Lions, India. Biodivers. Conserv.
13, 21652182.
Muller-Boker, U., 1991. Knowledge and evaluation of the environment in tradi-
tional societies in Nepal. Mount. Res. Dev. 11, 101114.
Nepal, S.J., Weber, K.E., 1995. The quandary of local parkpeople relations in
Nepals royal Chitwan National Park. Environ. Manage. 19, 853866.
Newmark,W.D., 1996. Insularizationof Tanzanianparks andthe local extinction
of large mammals. Conserv. Biol. 10, 15491556.
Newmark, W.D., Leonard, N.L., Sariko, H.I., Gamassa, D.G.M., 1993. Conser-
vation Attitudes of Local People Living Adjacent to 5 Protected Areas in
Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 63, 177183.
Oli, M.K., Taylor, I.R., Rogers, M.E., 1994. Snow leopard Panthera uncia pre-
dation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna
Conservation Area, Nepal. Biol. Conserv. 68, 6368.
Parry, D., Campbell, B., 1992. Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife
and its utilization in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana.
Environ. Conserv. 19, 245252.
Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publi-
cations, Newbury Park, CA.
Picard, C.H., 2003. Post-apartheid perceptions of the Greater St Lucia Wetland
Park, South Africa. Environ. Conserv. 30, 182191.
Raval, S.R., 1994. Wheel of life - perceptions and concerns of the resi-
dent peoples for gir-national-park in India. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 305
320.
Stre, D.V., 1993. People and Grasses: A Case Study from the Royal Bardia
National Park, Nepal. Agriculture University of Norway.Sah, J.P., Heinen, J.T., 2001. Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes
among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake area, Nepal.
Environ. Conserv. 28, 345356.
Sekhar, N.U., 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals
in protected areas in the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India.
Environ. Conserv. 25, 160171.
Sekhar, N.U., 2003. Local peoples attitudes towards conservation and wildlife
tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manage. 69,
339347.
Sharma, U.R., 1990. An overview of Parkpeople interactions in Royal Chitwan
National Park, Nepal. Landsc. Urban Plann. 19, 133144.
Sharma, U.R., Shaw, W.W., 1993. Role of Nepals Royal Chitwan National Park
in meeting the grazing and fodder needs of local people. Environ. Conserv.
20, 139142.
Slater, R., 2002. Between a rock and a hard place: contested livelihoods inQwaqwa National Park, South Africa. Geogr. J. 168, 116129.
Songorwa, A.N., 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM)
in Tanzania: are the communities interested? World Dev. 27, 2061
2079.
Straede, S., Helles, F., 2000. Parkpeople conflict resolution in Royal Chit-
wan National Park, Nepal: buying time a high cost? Environ. Conserv. 27,
368381.
Studsrd, J.E., Wegge, P., 1995. Parkpeople relationships - the case of dam-
age caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal.
Environ. Conserv. 22, 133142.
Tinker, I., 1994. Women and Community Forestry in Nepal: Expectations and
Reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 367381.
Upreti, B.N.,1994. Royal Bardia National Park. National Conservation Strategy
Implementation Project, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Wainwright, C., Wehrmeyer, W., 1998. Success in integrating conservation and
development? A study from Zambia. World Dev. 26, 933944.
Walpole, M.J., Goodwin, H.J., 2001. Local attitudes toward conservation and
tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environ. Conserv. 28,
160166.
Weladji, R.B., Moe,S.R., Vedeld, P., 2003. Stakeholder attitudestowardwildlife
policy and the Benoue Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Env-
iron. Conserv. 30, 334343.
Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R.,Fortwangler, C.L.,West, P.C., 2002. Reinventing
a square wheel: Critiqueof a resurgent protection paradigmin international
biodiversity conservation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 1740.
Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of popula-
tions inside protected areas. Science 280, 21262128.
Zube, E.H., 1986. Local and Extra-Local Perceptions of National-Parks and
Protected Areas. Landsc. Urban Plann. 13, 1117.
top related