10.1073/pnas.0702319104 |
SI Appendix
Description of Data Collected on Variables Identified As Related to Forest Change
Potential Drivers of Change
I. Attributes of the resource.
1. Topography. The IFRI study team categorized the topography of the land on which the forest was located into five categories, from primarily flat to primarily steep. This five-point variable was dichotomized for analysis, with forests primarily located in flat or rolling terrain in one group, and forests located in rolling terrain with some steep portions or in primarily steep terrain in another group.
2. Forest size. Forests were grouped into three categories of small (less than 15 ha), medium (15-100 ha), and large (above 100 ha).
3. Forest condition. A researcher trained in forestry accompanied the IFRI team. After the team inventoried all forest plots, the forester was asked to compare the density of vegetation and species diversity in the forest to other forests located in the same ecological zone. The forester's opinion on the commercial and subsistence values of the forest was also collected, but because the dataset of forests did not show much variability along these axes, information on vegetation density and species diversity was used to categorize the forests into two value groups.
II. Attributes of the users.
1. Group size. Number of users who harvest from, use, and/or maintain a forest and who share the same rights and duties to products from the forest. Categorized into three groups: less than 100 individuals = low; 100-1100 individuals = medium; more than 1100 individuals = high.
2. User group/forest ratio. Categorized into three groups: less than 5 individuals per ha of forest = low; 5-15 individuals per ha of forest = medium; more than 15 individuals per ha of forest = high.
III. Attributes pertaining to the relationship between resource and user group.
1. Distance of settlement from forest. Categorized into two groups: one located close to the forest (less than 1 km), and the second located farther from the forest (1-5 km). Averaged across all settlements that use a forest.
2. Dependence on the forest. Based on the percentage of users who were significantly dependent on the forest for their subsistence. Categorized into three groups: low dependence (less than 10% of all users), medium dependence (10-35% of all users), and high dependence (more than 35% of all users).
IV. Attributes of the governance system.
1. Tenure regime. Categorized into national forests, community forests, and leasehold forests (see description in main article).
2. Monitoring. How frequently do the users meet for monitoring and/or sanctioning? Categorized into four groups: users who meet year round, seasonally, occasionally, or never.
3. Social capital. Assessed as the degree to which users interact for cooperative harvesting. Information was also collected on the degree to which users interact for cooperative processing, marketing and sales, and financial contracts, but this information is less relevant in the Nepal context, where these activities rarely take place. Based on the frequency of cooperative harvesting, groups were assigned to two categories: groups whose members interact frequently (year round or seasonally) and groups whose members interact infrequently (occasionally or never).
4. Conflict. Users were asked whether there have been instances of disruptive social conflict in the group. Answers were marked as yes or no.
5. Leadership. Users were asked whether any individual in the group has acted as a leader or entrepreneur, investing time, energy, and perhaps money in trying to work out within the group coordinated strategies related to forest maintenance, upgrading, or harvesting of forest products. Answers were marked as yes or no.
6. Involvement of users in making rules. Users were asked whether some individuals within the group are responsible for making rules about the forest. Answers were marked as yes or no.
V. Attributes pertaining to the relationship between the governance system and the resource.
1. Planting. Users were asked whether they had taken part in the planting of seedlings, bushes, or trees. Answers were marked into six categories based on their frequency, ranging from plantings each year to a complete absence of planting. Based on the frequency of any kind of planting activity, forests were categorized into those planted frequently (at least every 5 years) and infrequently (about every 10 years or less frequently).
2. Forest maintenance. Users were asked whether they had undertaken clearing of vegetation, created a nursery, removed leaf litter from the forest floor, or sought help from external authorities to improve vegetation growth. Answers were marked as yes or no. These variables were combined to create a single dichotomous measure that indicates whether or not users had engaged in monitoring. Although information was also available on whether users have attempted to reduce harvest levels for medicinal plants, few user groups seemed to have done so in Nepal, and this variable was not included with the assessment of forest maintenance.
3. Adoption of new technologies that reduce pressure on the forest. Users were asked whether they had adopted new technologies, such as rice cookers, that may reduce pressure on the forest. Answers were marked as yes or no.
4. Regulation of forest pressure by harvesting outside. Users were asked whether they attempt to regulate pressure on their forest by harvesting from nearby national or communally owned forests. Answers were marked as yes or no.
1. Ostrom E, Nagendra H (2006) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA103:19224-19231.