title: Local residents perception of benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal.
abstract: High densities of people living around protected areas (PAs) in South Asia require management strategies to balance conservation goals and livelihood needs. Based on a survey of 777 households around five PAs in India and Nepal, this paper provides a comparative perspective of Indian and Nepali households' views of protected area benefits and costs, their attitude toward conservation in general, and attitude toward protected area staff. Results indicate mixed responses towards tourism, varying from very favorable in Nepal to less favorable in India. The majority (81%) held positive attitudes towards the existence and importance of PAs but had negative perceptions of PA staff (69%). Most residents perceived benefits from access to fuel wood, fodder and other PA resources including benefits from tourism, while crop and livestock losses from wildlife were the main costs. Households overall positive attitudes towards the PAs and conservation despite high losses from living around PAs suggests that local residents may support conservation if their livelihood needs are met. Comparisons of household attitudes and perceptions suggest that locally based strategies rather than top-down approaches are likely to be more effective. Extending PA benefits to smaller landholders, households that are highly resource-dependent or experiencing higher income losses from human-wildlife conflicts, and less educated residents are particularly important to balance costs and losses from living around protected areas.
authors.affiliation: Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA. krithi.karanth@gmail.com
authors.forename: Krithi K
authors.initials: KK
authors.lastname: Karanth
authors.forename: Sanjay K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Nepal
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000818:Animals; D000835:Animals, Wild; D001290:Attitude; D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources / Q000191:economics; D003365:Costs and Cost Analysis; D018556:Crops, Agricultural; D003625:Data Collection; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007194:India; D058751:Livestock; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009390:Nepal; D010465:Perception; D011639:Public Opinion; D012111:Residence Characteristics; D014195:Travel; D055815:Young Adult
references.citation: Ambio. 2004 Dec;33(8):520-9
references.pmid: 15666684
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2003 Feb;31(2):168-81
references.pmid: 12520374
references.citation: Trends Ecol Evol. 2004 May;19(5):232-7
references.pmid: 16701261
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2001 Aug;28(2):165-77
references.pmid: 11443381
references.citation: PLoS Biol. 2006 Oct;4(11):e360
references.pmid: 17076583
references.citation: Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Jul 7;277(1690):1971-9
references.pmid: 20219736
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2008 Dec;42(6):1017-25
references.pmid: 18853224
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2010 Feb;45(2):351-62
references.pmid: 19967362
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2006 Jan;37(1):1-14
references.pmid: 16362486
references.citation: J Environ Manage. 2003 Dec;69(4):339-47
references.pmid: 14680895
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2008 Sep;42(3):391-401
references.pmid: 18458999
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 May 6;105(18):6673-8
references.pmid: 18451028
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2004 Jan;33(1):12-24
references.pmid: 14961206
references.citation: Environ Manage. 2009 Jan;43(1):49-59
references.pmid: 18777191