Research Article: Karanth, K. K., & Nepal, S. K. (2012). Local residents perception of benefits and losses from protected areas in India and Nepal. Environmental management, 49, 372-386.

Blog Author: Ishika Ramakrishna 

Key Takeaways:

  • South Asia has high densities of people living alongside protected nature reserves and wildlife. The true extent of conservation success, and the overall wellbeing of people and animals in these regions depends upon these local communities’ perceptions of the costs and benefits of the landscape and its management.
  • To understand these perceptions, Dr. Krithi Karanth and Dr. Sanjay Nepal spoke to people living around five protected areas of India and Nepal in a total of 777 households, about their views and attitudes towards conservation.
  • The authors found a diversity of responses from each protected area, but found that 81% of people had positive attitudes towards the importance of PAs, but 69% had negative perceptions of PA staff. 
  • Knowing the general and nuanced views from each PA was extremely valuable to balance the costs and benefits to people from region-specific conservation efforts.

 

South Asia holds a mind-boggling diversity and density of biodiversity, habitats and people. Different countries across Asia have varied conservation strategies and laws pertaining to the management of their protected areas (PAs). Further, each one faces unique challenges with respect to supporting local livelihoods, commercial interests like tourism and infrastructure development, and using resources from forests while safeguarding PAs and their wildlife. Balancing the needs and goals of local residents is thus crucial and challenging in equal parts. 

Hoping to find that balance, Dr. Krithi Karanth and Dr. Sanjay Nepal took the initiative to document and analyze the attitudes and needs of local residents living around five PAs across India and Nepal. As of 2012, there were 590 PAs across India, covering less than 4% of the total land area in the country. In contrast, Nepal had 16 PAs covering 20% of the country. From these, the authors conducted their study in Ranthambore, Kanha and Nagarahole National Parks from India, and Chitwan National Park and Annapurna Conservation Area in Nepal. 

Across these regions, they interviewed 777 households. They inspected the perception of benefits like employment opportunities through tourism and the increased access to natural resources. They also explored people’s attitudes towards losses faced, including crop damages due to wildlife, threats to human life, restrictions on the use of natural resources and conservation-associated conflicts with PA staff. They were also curious about the factors that lead to these perceptions existing – from socioeconomic reasons like gender, income and education, to cultural usage of natural resources. 

The authors obtained a wide range of responses. While the people from each PA had varied and nuanced answers to all of their questions, there were some large trends in people’s perceptions across all the reserves. In Nepal, tourism was thought to benefit households more, while in India, local communities found that they rarely obtained benefits from commercial tourism. Overall, 81% of households depended on natural resources and gained from access to PAs. However, some downfalls included the increased human-wildlife conflicts and strained relationships with law enforcement and PA staff. The authors thus found that top-down management and external players for tourism do not always benefit local communities. 

When wildlife and people intimately share spaces and lives, paying attention to the needs of both is non-negotiable. Listening closely to local communities could help with more effective PA management, helping them balance the costs and benefits of living alongside wild spaces, ultimately leading to better conservation efforts. 

 

You can access the original article here.

Keywords: Local perceptions, India, Nepal, Protected area–people relationships, Conservation