STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND ...
-
Upload
akhanda-raj-upreti -
Category
Documents
-
view
229 -
download
0
Transcript of STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND ...
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
1/91
STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA
WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND
AVAILABILITY OF FOREST RESOURCES
Dissertation Submitted to
Central Department of Environmental Science,
Tribhuvan University
For the Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for Masters Degree in
Environmental Science
Submitted By
Akhanda Raj Upreti
Exam Roll No: 442
TU Regd. No: 5-2-33-620-2003
Central Department of Environment Science
Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Kathmandu, Nepal
November 2011
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
2/91
ii
LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION
This is to certify that Mr. Akhanda Raj Upreti has conducted this research entitled
Study of Handikhola Buffer Zone VDC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Relation with
Need and Availability of Forest Resources for partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the completion of Masters Degree in Environmental Science majoring in 'Wildlife
Management'. He had worked sufficiently well under my supervision and guidance.
This study work embodies candidates own work and is original. To the best of my
knowledge this report has not been submitted for any other degree.I recommend this dissertation to be accepted and approved for the partial fulfillment of
Masters Degree in Environmental science.
Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha
Visiting Scholar
Central Department of Environment Science
Tribuvan University, Kirtipur
Former Joint Secretary, Department of Forests
Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
November 31, 2011
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
3/91
iii
DECLARATION
I, Akhanda Raj Upreti, hereby declare that this Dissertation entitled Study ofHandikhola Buffer Zone VDC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve in Relation with Need and
Availability of Forest Resorces is original work. Sources of information other than
my own have been acknowledged and a reference list has been appended. This work has
not been published or submitted elsewhere for any academic award.
Akhanda Raj Upreti
Central Department of Environmental Science
Tribhuvan University
Kirtipur, Kathmandu
November 31, 2011
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
4/91
iii
January 26, 2012
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
5/91
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My heartfelt thanks and gratitude go to all those without whom this work would have
never reached its final stage. I express my in depth gratitude and indebtedness to my
supervisor Mr. Rajeswar Shrestha for his continuous encouragement and valuablesuggestions during the research period and the production of this dissertation. I would
like to thank Associate Prof. Dr. Kedar Rijal, Head, Central Department of
Environmental Science and Former Head, Prof. Dr. Umakanta Roy Yadav for their
support to carry out this study. I would also like to acknowledge the support and
mentorship provided by Resources Himalaya Foundation and Late Dr. Pralad Yonzon,
for his guidance and motivation.
This research work would not have been completed in this form without the generous
help of different persons of Handikhola VDC. Special thank goes to Mr. Bansi Gopal
Kandel (Chairman of Shree Chetana BZCF), Prem Prasad Lamichhane (Chairman of
Shree Janakalyan kalika BZCF), Bishal Lama (Office Assistant of Shree Janahit BZCF),
Tejraj Pandey (Office Assistant of Shree Janajagriti BZCF), Kushal Thing (Chairman of
Gauri Shanker BZCF), Bouddhajit Gongba (Chairman of Shree Manakamana BZCF),
Buddhi Lal Waiba (Office Assistant of Shree Lokhit BZCF), Kedar Karki (Forest Guard
of Shree Janajagriti BZCF), Shanker Bulun (Office assistant of Shree JanakalyanBZCF) and Baliraj Gongba (Member of User Committee, Shree Manakamana BZCF). I
would also like to thank all the staff members of Library at CDES, TU; Central Library,
TU; Forest Survey and Research Office, DNPWC and Department of Forests for their
help in providing literatures, review papers and electronic peer reviewed papers.
I also extend my special thanks to all the friends for their active help and support. In
particular, I admire the help of my friends Nirina Khadgi, Suchita Shrestha, Aruna
Thapa, Deepak Baruwal and Ghanshyam Subedi for their helps during the field study. I
am indebted to my seniors Dhan Shrestha, Badri Ghimire and Bhuwan Dhakal for their
incredible support in diverse aspects of dissertation writing.
Finally yet vitally, I would like to utter my heartfelt gratitude and respect to my parents
and family members for their constant encouragement and support in each and every
step of my academic life.
Akhanda Raj Upreti
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
6/91
vi
ABSTRACT
This study was undertaken in Lokhit Buffer Zone User Committee of Handikhola VDC
of Parsa Wildlife Reserve so as to get acquainted with forest dependency, livelihood and
participatory conservation approach and the socioeconomic setting of the local people.
Seventy HHs were interviewed using structured and semi structured questionnaire, with
due consideration to the objectives of the study. Two hundred and five plots were laid
for vegetation survey including 41 plots (20x20 cm2) for tree species (DBH>10), 82
each for shrub stratum (DBH
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
7/91
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Recommendation ii
Declaration iii
Letter of Approval iv
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi
Table of contents vii
Acronyms xiii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Rationale of the Study 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study 4
1.4 Limitation of the Study 4
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Buffer Zone Programme 5
2.2 Livelihood and Conservation 5
2.3 Buffer Zone in the Context of Nepal 6
2.3.1 Development, Conservation Issues and Park-people conflict 7
2.3.2 Buffer Zone Community Forestry 8
2.4 Other pertinent researches 9
CHAPTER THREE: STUDY AREA
3.1 Parsa Wildlife Reserve 11
3.2 Handikhola Buffer Zone User Committee 12
CHAPTER FOUR: MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1 Research Design 13
4.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey 13
4.1.2 Household Sampling Design and Sample size 14
4.1.3 Questionnaire Survey, Data Calculation and Analysis 15
4.2 Vegetation Survey 15
4.2.1 Sampling 15
4.2.2 Plot Design 16
4.3 Sampling Parameters and Methodology 17
4.4 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetation 17
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
8/91
viii
4.4.1 General Parameters 18
4.4.2 Volume and Biomass 19
4.4.3 Estimates of Annual and Sustainable Yield 19
4.4.4 Stand Size 21
4.4.5 Stocking 21
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULT
5.1 Socio-economic Survey and Household Wellbeing 22
5.1.1 Respondents 22
5.2 Socio-economic Status 23
5.2.1 Population Structure 23
5.2.2 Education 23
5.2.3 Access to Drinking Water and State of Sanitation 24
5.2.4 Access to Means of Information 25
5.2.5 Farm Size 26
5.2.6 Crop Production and Sufficiency 27
5.2.7 Livestock Holding and Fodder Consumption 29
5.2.8 Energy Sources 32
5.2.8.1 Fuel Wood 33
5.3 Buffer Zone Community Forest 35
5.3.1 Acquaintance with Buffer Zone Activity and Budget Allocation 36
5.3.2 Acquaintance with the Condition of the Buffer Zone Community
Forests 36
5.4 Wildlife 36
5.4.1 Status of Wildlife 36
5.4.2 Problem Caused by Wildlife 37
5.5 Vegetation Analysis 38
5.5.1 Tree Stratum 38
5.5.2 Shrub Stratum 40
5.5.3 Herb Stratum 42
5.5.4 Status of Forest 43
5.5.4.1 Biodiversity 43
5.5.4.2 Regeneration 43
5.5.4.3 Cut Stumps 445.5.4.4 Lopping 45
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
9/91
ix
5.5.5 Annual and Sustainable Yield 46
5.5.5.1 Volume and Biomass of Tree 46
5.5.5.2 Sustainable Yield of Forest Resources 48
5.5.5.3 Annual Yield of Green Fodder 49
5.5.5.4 Estimated Resource Demand and Supply 49
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSION
6.1 Socio-economic Analysis 50
6.1.1 Demographic Characteristics and Education 50
6.1.2 Landholding, Agriculture and Food Sufficiency 51
6.1.3 Energy and Forest Resources: Dependency and Consumption 52
6.1.4 Buffer Zone Community Forests 53
6.2 Vegetation Analysis 53
6.2.1 Tree Stratum 53
6.2.2 Shrub Stratum 54
6.2.3 Herb Stratum 54
6.2.4 Sustainable Yield of Tree Species, and the Forest Status 55
CHAPTER SEVEN: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Conclusion 57
7.2 Recommendation 57
References 58-64
Annexes
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
10/91
x
List of Figures
Figure Page No.
Figure 1: Nested quadrate plot 16
Figure 2: Access to different means of information 25
Figure 3: Landholding by HHs 26
Figure 4: Food availability as per the landholdings of HHs 28
Figure 5: Green fodder source 31
Figure 6: Green fodder source on the basis of farm size 31
Figure 7: Biogas plant installation as per ethnicity 32
Figure 8: Biogas installation as per the farm size 33
Figure 9: Sources of fuel wood as per ethnicity 34Figure 10: Sources of fuel wood as per farm size 34
Figure 11: Acquaintance with buffer zone activity 36
Figure 12: Respondents' perception on change in wildlife population 37
Figure 13: Stand size classification of trees 39
Figure 14: Height classification of trees 49
List of Maps
Map Page No.
Map 1: Study area 11
Map 2: Handikhola VDC showing sample households in the study area 12
Map 3: BZCFs with showing vegetation sample plots 16
List of Tables
Table Page No.
Table 4.1: Sample HHs based on the total number of HHs in the BZCFUGs 14
Table 4.2: Household category as per the land holding 15
Table 4.3: Classification of forest strata 17
Table 4.4: Sampling Parameters 17
Table 4.5: Growing stock and Annual Yield (tons/ha) in the natural forest of
Tarai Regions of Western Development Region, Nepal 20
Table 4.6: Fodder Yield from various land categories 21
Table 4.7: Stand Size Classification 21
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
11/91
xi
Table 4.8: Stocking of Tree Stratum 21
Table 5.1: General characteristics of the Respondents 22
Table 5.2: Population structure of the study area as per the Ethnicity 23
Table 5.3: Population structure of the study area as per the Landholding 23
Table 5.4: Educational Status as per Ethnicity 24
Table 5.5: Educational Status as per Landholding 24
Table 5.6: Sources of drinking water and state of sanitation as per ethnicity 25
Table 5.7: Sources of drinking water and state of sanitation as per farm size 25
Table 5.8: Farm category as per Ethnic group 26
Table 5.9: Land Holding on the basis of Ethnicity 27
Table 5.10: Crop Production and Sufficiency as per the Ethnic Group 27
Table 5.11: Food availability period 27
Table 5.12: Food availability as per the ethnicity 28
Table 5.13: Alternative income sources to manage food insufficiency. 29
Table 5.14: Distribution of livestock on the basis of landholding 29
Table 5.15: Distribution of livestock on the basis of ethnicity 29
Table 5.16: Fodder demand as per the land holding 30
Table 5.17: Fodder demand as per ethnicity 30
Table 5.18: Correlation between different parameters of fodder 31
Table 5.19: Sources of energy 32
Table 5.20: Various sources of fuel wood 33
Table 5.21: Fuel wood consumption of households as per farm size 34
Table 5.22: Fuel wood consumption of households as per the ethnicity 35
Table 5.23: Correlation of fuel wood demand with different parameters 35
Table 5.24: Average Buffer zone community forest area (h a) per HH 35
Table 5.25: Acquaintance with the condition of BZCFs 36
Table 5.26: Density, Frequency, Basal area and IVI of plant species at tree
Stratum 38
Table 5.27: Stocking of the forests 40
Table 5.28: Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of plant species at
shrub stratum 40
Table 5.29: Density, Frequency, Dominance and IVI of plant species at
herb stratum 42Table 5.30 Dominance index, Species Richness, Shannon Diversity Index and
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
12/91
xii
Evenness Index of different plant strata 43
Table 5.31: Regeneration of Tree Species in Shrub Plots 44
Table 5.32: Cut stump density 45
Table 5.33: Cut stump density as per the DBH class 45
Table 5.34: Lopping intensity of the tree species 46
Table 5.35: Density of lopped species as per the lopping intensity 46
Table 5.36: Volume and biomass of tree species 47
Table 5.37: Sustainable yield of fuel wood and timber 48
Table 5.38: Annual yield of green fodder in unit III of Handikhola BZ area 49
Table 5.39: Estimated resource demand and supply 49
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
13/91
xiii
ACRONYMS
BA Basal Area
BZ Buffer Zone
BZCF Buffer Zone Community Forest
BZCFUG Buffer Zone Community Forest User Group
BZMR Buffer Zone Management Regulation
BZUG Buffer Zone User Group
CAMR Conservation Area Management Regulation
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CDR Central Development Region
CFUGs Community Forest User Groups
CNP Chitwan National Park
CSD Cut Stump Density
DBH Diameter at Breast Height
DNPWC Department of National parks and Wildlife Conservation
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FSSD Forest Survey and Statistical Division
GPS Global Positioning SystemHa Hectare
HHs Households
HMG/N His Majestys Government Nepal
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Projects
INV Inventory Net Volume
IVI Important Value Index
Kg Kilogram
LU Livestock Unit
LTD Live Tree Density
MAB Man and Biosphere
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MPFSN Master Plan for Forestry Sector of Nepal
PAs Protected Areas
PCP Participatory Conservation Programme
PWR Parsa Wildlife Reserve
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
14/91
xiv
RBA Relative Basal Area
RD Relative Density
RF Relative Frequency
SLC School Leaving Certificate
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science
TDN Total Digestible Nutrient
UCs User Committees
UGs User Groups
VDC Village Development Committee
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural
Organization
Yr Year
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
15/91
1
CHAPTER: ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BackgroundConservation and Buffer Zone Programme
The relationship between local people and Protected Areas is one of the most vexed
issues in conservation and encapsulates the problems inherent in a trade-off between the
common good and the rights and needs of the individual. It is also an area where those
ultimately responsible for protected areas including both governments and others
have all too often got things badly wrong, creating tensions and conflicts through a
failure to address questions of peoples needs early enough in the planning of a
protected area (Carey, et.al, 2000). Protected areas help save biodiversity and wildlife
from being destroyed (Brandon & Wells, 1992; Skonhoft, 1998). However, in the
developing world due to poverty and population growth, protection laws have caused
park-people conflicts (Heinen, 1993). Studies show that a restriction on use or
harvesting of natural resources from the traditionally used lands is the main cause of
park-people conflict (Fiallo & Jacobson, 1995; Heinen, 1996; Sekhar, 1998; Straede &
Helles, 2000). With the exhaustion and restriction of natural resources, people will tend
to extract as much as possible from protected areas in order to satisfy their immediate
needs, without considering the benefits to be gained from long-term environmental
security (Heinen & Meheta, 2000).
The relationships between human communities and protected areas have too often been
ignored and even destroyed by resource conservation and management initiatives.
Moreover, the establishment of protected areas has often displaced rural communities
from their traditional lands and policy of strict protection has also alienated the wildlife
from the local people, and has frequently transformed wildlife from a valuable
commodity into a threat and a nuisance (Johannesen & Skonhoft, 2005).The ill-suited
concepts and approaches to the needs and problems of local, often native people, led
park people conflict and raised many questions on long term biodiversity conservation
and protected areas.
The relationships between protected areas and human needs, and the relevancy of
integrating protected areas with other major development issues were focused firstly in
Third World Congress on National Parks, 1982 (Mishra & Jefferies, 1991; cited in
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
16/91
2
Nepal & Weber, 1993), nourished and reinforced by the Man and Biosphere/United
Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (MAB/UNESCO) Biosphere
Reserve Action Plan 1984 (Sayer, 1991). Since the 1993 World Park Congress held in
Caracas, the scientific community has known and has recognized that the mostly poor
local populations bear major costs of conservation, while the main benefits occur
globally (Amend & Amend, 1995; Wells, 1992); this truth was again acknowledged,
and more forcefully, by the conservation community during the 2003 World Park
Congress.
Following the failure of top-down exclusionary approaches ('fortress conservation' or
fences and fines or bio-centric approach) to protected areas in reaching conservation
objectives, the 1993 World Park Congress in Caracas recognized and acknowledged therole of local people in conservation and embraced the concept of ICDPs put forward by
Wells and Brandon (1993). While the core objective of these ICDPs projects is
protected area conservation (Brandon & Wells, 1992), the aim is to achieve this by
promoting economic development and by providing local people with alternative
income sources that do not threaten wildlife.
The buffer zone concept underlies the philosophy of ICDPs by encouraging both
sustainable extractive uses and public participation in management which became the
forefront of conservation (HMG/N, 1993; Heinen and Mehta, 2000). However, the
widespread implementation of ICDPs has disappointing results (Wells and Mc Shane,
2004), as it is primarily unable to address the ecological and social aspects of
biodiversity conservation. But despite the global failure of ICDPs, social capital has
been rapidly gaining its ground in long term conservation, which involves ecology,
economic forecast and social strata (Paudyal, 2007). Yonzon (2006) argues that these
three fundamentals should be synthesized as one for forecasting scenarios and
sustaining development activities to safeguard biodiversity.
The legal definition of buffer zones is "areas set aside around a national park or reserve
for granting opportunities to local people to use forest products on a regular basis"
(HMG/UNDP, 1994). Nepal, having its higher proportion of people depending upon the
forest resources, institutionalized the concept of Buffer Zone (BZ), outside of
protected area, under the framework of ICDPs to ensure solutions for pursuing sound
conservation by ensuring a double sustainability: that is, the sustainability of
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
17/91
3
peoples livelihood and the sustainability of biodiversity (Ebregt & Greve, 2000; Cernea
& Schmidt-Soltau, 2006).
Though, over the last two decades ICDPs have failed to live up to their promises
(Christensen, 2003), integrated conservation and development with participatory
approach, in Nepal, is perceived to have made biodiversity conservation both holistic
and real (Bajimaya, 2005) resulting in the gradual increment of buffer zone area. They
are thought to be doing well, but there has not been concrete research so as to say they
are successful or not. Thus with the changing time and technologies, the core principle
of buffer zone needs the assessment so as to ensure that they are living up to their
promise and dont fail in the midway.
1.2 Rationale of the Study
The buffer zone (BZ) programme is an important intervention in Nepal's journey
towards participatory conservation. The programme has opened up spaces for local
people to participate in conservation activities through a range of institutional
arrangements such as user groups (UGs), user committees (UCs) and Councils (Paudel
et. al 2007). The concept of buffer zone, besides calling for sustainable utilization of
forest resources, also necessitates environmental conservation within the zone (Sharma
1995).
To promote the sustainable use of biological resources, there is no ground-based
knowledge in biological and ecological sciences (Yonzon, 2004). There is no sufficient
study to assess the complete relation between resources access, wildlife damage and
monetary benefits from national parks (Joshi, 1999). In contrast, some contend as
Nepals PAs meet the basic needs of communities who live in the BZ, the focus of BZ
has shifted more towards people (RHF, 2005). Like many developing countries, Nepal
has adopted a Community Based Conservation (CBC) approach in recent years to
manage its PAs mainly in response to poor park-people relations (Heinen & Mehta,
2000). Ecological information on Churiya is almost non-existent. For instance, out of
637 site-specific botanical studies in Nepal since 1922, only 3% have attributed the
Churiya (Rajbhandari, 1994). This figure is the lowest of all physiographic zones.
Similarly less than 4% of all published papers on Nepals biodiversity are attributed to
the Churiya (ICIMOD, 1996). Also there is a lack of sound database at local level on
forest dependency and livelihood options of people.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
18/91
4
On this ground, this study in unit III of Handikhola BZUC, Parsa Wildlife Reserve, will
provide a set of data on vegetation composition and socio-economic structure of the
VDC in the BZ which can be used to compare with other BZ VDCs of same PAs so as
to figure out fodder and fuel wood needs and draw the line between different zones.
This will definitely help conservation biologists and protected area managers to
implement the effective conservation framework. Moreover,the outcomes of this study
could be helpful for maintaining database at local level which could avail information
for better management practices of BZ.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
Broadly, the study endeavors to ascertain the overall status of unit III of Handikhola
BZUC of Parsa Wildlife Reserve with the special focus on ecological and socio-economic setting.
Specific Objectives:
1. To study the vegetation ecology of the BZ community forests and the
sustainable supply of forest resources.
2. To assess the total fodder and fuel wood demands of local people, and the share
of conventional and alternative sources of energy being utilized by the people.
3. To be acquainted with the demography and socio-economic condition of
households in the area.
1.4 Limitations of the Study
1. The study of demand and supply of forest resources embraces only fodder and
fuel wood.
2. Since the study was conducted in the dry season, a number of species of herbs
and shrubs have not been reported.
3. The vegetation analysis takes account of only forest measurement but not the
study of any cause and effect relationship.
4. The error value was not incorporated into the forest inventory. Thus, the results
represent actual measurements.
5. To find out the forest crown cover, ocular estimation was made.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
19/91
5
CHAPTER: TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Buffer Zone ProgrammeBuffer zone programmes are one of the most widely applied strategies to nature
conservation. As a particular strategy of integrating conservation with development,
buffer zones conceive protected areas as composed of layers of resources subject to
different priorities; the inner zone, also called the core zone, is subjected to strict
protection. The outer layer, usually called the buffer zone (BZ), is targeted for
sustainable use (Paudel, 2006). BZs are therefore defined as peripheral zones of
protected areas subjected to restricted use (Sayer, 1991). BZ programme has two
common objectives. First, by improving the management of the natural resources in the
buffer zone area, they seek to increase the supply of natural resources for local need
thereby reducing the pressure on the protected area. Second, improved ecological
conditions in the buffer zones are expected to provide an extended habitat for the
wildlife (Poudel, 2006). This opportunity to meet the multiple agenda of conservation
and poverty reduction has, according to Sayer (1991), convinced the larger donors to
invest in BZ programmes. The ideas of BZs have been so popular that almost every
protected area now talks of BZ (Wells & Brandon, 1993).
The conservation model based on the foundation of strict protection has been found to
be insufficient as protected areas enjoy no or little public support and therefore some
alternative mechanism for long-term conservation of biological resources are required.
Hence, the introduction of the BZ programme in Nepal is a testimony to increase
realization of the participatory approaches and emerging understanding of landscape
management approaches (Budhathoki, 2003).
2.2 Livelihood and Conservation
Forest resources play an important role in peoples livelihood throughout the globe
(Shackleton, et. al., 2007; Quang & Noriko, 2008). Thoms (2008) also mentioned that
forest products and services are important in that they provide indirect livelihood
benefits for the well-being of people. Sunderlin, et. al., (2005) explained that most of
the rural livelihood is maintained with diversified sources while sufficient income could
not be obtained from any single occupation to survive. The reason is that farmers
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
20/91
6
livelihood systems also could not be entirely reliant on agriculture but rather should
involve the forest. Livelihood opportunities are determined by various socioeconomic
and development factors (Wunder, 2001; Sunderlin, et. al.,2005; Shackleton, et. al.,
2007), therefore, communities living in and adjacent to savannas and forests are
characterized by seemingly high levels of poverty. There is always a strong relationship
among the natural resources, peoples livelihood and socioeconomic consequences in
particular. The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and several other international
forums have identified increasing global poverty and loss of biodiversity as the twin
problems of twenty first century. These problems are perceived to be mutually
reinforcing where poverty is usually seen as both cause and consequence of biodiversity
loss. However, in many cases conservation initiatives themselves have induced poverty.
Conservation efforts such as creation and management of protected areas exacerbate
poverty by eviction, denying access to traditional resources use and loss of life,
livestock and crop due to increased wildlife (Panta, 2009). Brown (2003) argues that
wide range of different strategies and approaches will be necessary in the future to
reconcile and trade-off the needs and demands of global to local societies in a real
people centered conservation; and as per Hutton and Williams (2003) sustainable use
and incentive-driven conservation should both be at the centre of the conservation
agenda this century. Berkes (2004) argues that rethinking community based
conservation require an explicit understanding of the nature of people, communities,
institutions, and their interrelations at various levels.
2.3 Buffer Zone in Context of Nepal
Nepal embarked on formal conservation of species and habitats with the 'fortress-and-
fines' model in the 1970s; an approach that was easy to conceptualize, and discouraged
most forms of resource use from protected areas (PAs) (Heinen and Mehta, 2000), but
the alienation of local people who lost extraction rights culminated in negative attitudes
towards conservation and PA-people relationships became poor (Nepal and Weber,
1995; Studsord and Wegge, 1995). Although the approach was successful in conserving
endangered species of wildlife (Heinen and Yonzon, 1994), it was severely criticized for
imposing restrictions on local-level usage rights and debarring local people from
participation (Heinen, 1996; Heinen and Shrestha, 2006). As a result of broader levels
of decentralization and democratization, the government gradually changed its policy to
inclusion of local people in PA management. However, there have been significant
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
21/91
7
dissenting voices that suggest strict protection remains the highest priority for
conservation interests (Brandon, et al., 1998; Terborgh et al., 2002).
Nepal entered into the next generation of participatory conservation after the
Conservation Area Management Regulation (CAMR) 1995 and Buffer Zone
Management Regulation (BZMR) were passed. These regulations enjoined participation
and empowerment of local people for the conservation, management and utilization of
natural resources (HMG/N, 1996). The ratification of BZMR vested the government
with the legal power to declare and delineate BZs in the periphery of national parks and
wildlife reserves and to earmark 30-50% of revenue generated by them to local
communities residing in the buffer zones for various activities prioritized by local
people. BZs have been developed with the aim to meet the natural resource needs oflocal communities as well as minimizing human impact on protected areas so as to
avoid contentious situation between the park management and people. Various
integrated conservation and development activities have been carried out in BZs to meet
the dual goals of environmental protection and economic development.
2.3.1 Development, Conservation Issues and Park-people Conflict
Yonzon (1999) argues that vitality of Protected Areas, is guaranteed through people's
participation but the nuts and bolts of ecology are wanting. Minimizing external
assistance for the biodiversity conservation, in the form of jump start and quick fix, will
be mutually beneficial for Nepal (Yonzon, 2004). Though Nepal has achieved much in
biodiversity conservation, given the scarcity of resources, economic imbalance and
growing human population, the vulnerability of protected areas will further increase
(Poudel ,2005).
The BZ policy is mostly coercive from the stand point of local people (Heinen and
Mehta, 2000). The spatial complexities involved in correctly identifying the
beneficiaries in a community and the short-term focus of incentive based programmes
are two major challenges for sustaining conservation efforts (Spiteri and Nepal, 2005).
The BZ and conservation area policies have over time become weighted more heavily
towards development and less towards conservation (Heinen and Shrestha, 2006).
Damage of agricultural crop, human harassment, injuries and death, and livestock
depredation are the common causes of the imbalanced park-people relationship(Studsord and Wegge, 1995). Nepal and Weber (1995) identified five major causes of
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
22/91
8
park-people conflicts prevailing in the park including, illegal transactions of forest
products, livestock grazing, illegal hunting and fishing, crop damage, and threats to
human from wild animals. Joshi (1999) studied the socio economic analysis of BZ of
Chitwan National Park and found that the households having positive attitudes towards
national park are usually the one who consume higher quantity of natural resources,
have lower damage from wildlife, benefit from tourism and are educated.
2.3.2 Buffer Zone Community Forestry
According to DFRS/HMGN (1999a & b), forest area has decreased at an annual rate of -
1.7% from 1978/79 to 1994, whereas forest and shrub land together have decreased at
an annual rate of -0.51% in the entire country. The forest cover in the Tarai has
decreased at an annual rate of -1.3% from 1978/79 to 1990/91. In the hills, the forestarea has decreased at an annual rate of -2.3% from 1978/79 to 1994, whereas forest and
shrub altogether have decreased at an annual rate of 0.2%. Chaudhary (2000) points out
that the decline in forest resources in Nepal took place in the past due to lack of
appropriate policy to guide the legal, institutional and operational development for the
forestry sector. As a result, the evolution of community forestry has gained a new
impetus in recent years (Chakraborty, 2001).
Community forests provide Nepali villagers with a variety of timber products and many
other marketable resources. But, Adhikari et. al. (2004) found that poorer households
are currently facing more restricted access to community forests than "less poor" or
relatively better off households. In this regard, Maskey et. al. (2006) found that the
disadvantaged groups are excluded from decision making in product distribution due to
their insignificant involvement in community forest management. As per Devkota
(2005), Nepal is pioneer to establish sustainable forest management by forming forest
user's groups. But Straede and Treue (2006) argue that irrespective of BZ community
forestry, there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural
resources and their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be
unsustainable.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
23/91
9
2.4 Other Pertinent Researches
Bhatta (1994) studied the buffer zone aspects and the local participation in the
conservation of biodiversity and found that the problems of the locals are yet to be
addressed.
Bhuju (1984) studied the conservation strategy of Nepal and found that the legal
provision had clearly demarcated the protected areas for conservation but the co-
operation with the locals is still lacking.
Joshi (1999) studied the socio economic status of BZ of Chitwan National Park and
found that the HHs having positive attitudes towards national park are usually the one
which consume higher quantity of Natural Resources, have lower damage from wildlife,
benefit from tourism and are educated.
FAO (2001) stated that forest resources contributed directly to livelihoods and combine
with other key components of poverty reduction through food production, food security,
provide commercial opportunities and employment for the poor.
K.C. (2007) had investigated the BZ vegetation status and socio economic perspective
of biodiversity conservation in two wards of Manahari VDC of CNP and the study
demonstrated that the fuel wood and fodder resources of the buffer zone were not
sufficient and the harvesting practice was not sustainable.
Dhakal (2007) carried out the research in Kolhuwa Buffer Zone VDC of Chitwan
National Park assessing resource demand and supply scenario of local users of BZ, and
his conclusion was that BZ programmes had several shortcomings mainly because of
high population relying on fewer amounts of resources driving them towards abject
poverty.
Nagendra et. al. (2005) found the regeneration of several patches of BZCF as a good
sign of forest management in Chitwan, but due to the lack of effective control over
forest managements policies, local communities were functioning under a situation of
constraint and hence the lack of development of property rights and decision making
power imposed negative implication for the future of the programme.
Rijal and Meilby (2006) suggested that lack of knowledge of forest structure;
composition and magnitude of human impacts on various components of the ecosystem
remain a major limitation for the development of the appropriate participatory
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
24/91
10
management programmes for conservation and sustainable utilization of the forests in
Nepal.
Shrestha et. al. (2000) compared the status of regenerating, natural and degraded forest
of chitre pani, Makwanpur district, and found highest tree biomass and volume in
natural forest; while tree and sapling density were highest in regenerating forest.
Straede and Treue (2006) argued that irrespective of buffer zone community forestry,
there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural resources and
their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be unsustainable.
Subedi (2010) studied BZ resources, livelihood and community level conservation of
Manahari VDC and noted that annual demand of fuel wood and fodder outstrip theannual sustainable supply and suggested participation of locals through the evaluation
of current BZ policy for sustaining BZ.
Sunderlin et. al. (2005) mentioned that HH surveys and case study research
demonstrated the tendency of rural poor being disproportionately dependent upon forest
resources in the sense that a higher proportion of their total income comes from forest
resources.
Jnawali (1989) assessed the crop damage and human harassment by rhino in Sahaura
area and suggested that the northern fringe of the park is degraded due to the livestock
grazing and other human activities. He also emphasized on the people oriented
programme and compensation to reduce the growing negative attitude towards park
management.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
25/91
11
CHAPTER: THREE
STUDY AREA
3.1 Parsa Wildlife ReserveParsa Wildlife Reserve (PWR) was gazetted in 1984 A.D (B.S. 2041) with an aim of
preserving the population of wild Asian elephant and a variety of associated flora and
fauna. The reserve covers an area of 558.1 km2 of tropical and sub-tropical forest. The
Reserve also provides an extended habitat to the wildlife of the Chitwan National Park
(CNP). The Reserve includes tropical and sub-tropical forests of Churia (Siwalik) and
Bhabar physiographic regions from Parsa, Makwanpur and Bara districts. The Reserve
headquarters is located at Adhabhar on the East-West highway.
The soil is primarily composed of gravel and conglomerates, making it very susceptible
to erosion. The hills present a rugged face with numerous gullies and dry stream beds.
As the foothills are very porous, water flows underground from surfaces at the distance
of about 15 km from hill base (DNPWC/PCP, 2006).
BZ of PWR was declared in 2005 covering an area of 298.17 km2.
Map 1: A: Nepal and PWR; B: PWR and BZ; C: Handikhola VDC and Study Area
(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)
A
C
B
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
26/91
12
3.2 Handikhola Buffer Zone User Committee
Handikhola BZUC lies in Makwanpur district in the Narayani Zone of Southern Nepal.
Handikhola VDC lies to the southwest corner of Makwanpur district and is bordered by
Manahari VDC to the west, Padampokhari VDC to the east, Basamadi VDC to the north
and dense forest of Parsa Wildlife Reserve, Parsa to the south. The VDC is touched by
the East-West Highway (the Mahendra Highway) and is drained by the Rapti River
through the rivulets like Twangra khola, Masine khola, Handi khola, Thado khola,
Makari khola and Chakari khola. The climate is sub tropical monsoon.
Handikhola BZ area includes all 9 wards in the BZ programme and is classified into
three divisions: Unit I (ward number 8 and 9), Unit II (ward number 5, 6 and 7) and
Unit III (ward number 1, 2, 3 and 4). The present study encompasses only three wards(ward number 1, 2 and 4) of Unit III. Ward number 3 was not studied as it had no any
CF registered till then. Further, the study covers 7 CFs viz. Chetana BZCF (164.60 ha)
(Operational plan, 2009/10 to 2013/14), Jankalyan Kalika BZCF (293.89 ha)
(Operational plan, 2008-2013), Janahit BZCF (434.63 ha) (Operational plan, 2008-
2013), Janajagriti BZCF (141.00 ha) (Operational plan, 2007-2012), Gaurishanker
BZCF (300.00 ha) (Operational plan, 2008-2013), Lokhit BZCF (284.00 ha)
(Operational plan, 2007-2012) and Manakamana BZCF (422.00 ha) (Operational plan,
2007-2012).
Map 2: Handikhola VDC showing sample HHs in the study area
(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
27/91
13
CHAPTER: FOUR
MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.1 Research DesignThe research study was carried out based on the following framework.
4.1.1 Reconnaissance Survey
In order to collect informations pertinent to the study, reconnaissance survey was
carried out. On the basis of it, questionnaire was formed and pretested. The total number
of HHs in the study area and the total area of the forests were found out from the
operational plans of respective BZCFs so as to determine the HH sample size and the
intensity of vegetation sampling. Also, the GPS points of forest boundaries were taken
to prepare maps.
Map Preparation
Draft Report Preparation
Data Analysis
Final Report Preparation
Field Study
A. Vegetation Analysis
B. Questionnaire Survey
a) Household well being
b) Forest Issues
c) BZ ManagementIssues
d) Wildlife Issues
Literature Review Reconnaissance Survey
a) Preliminary Study
b) Formation of sample questionnaire
c) Pretesting of Sample questionnaire
d) Finalization of sample questionnaire
e) GPS points of forest boundary
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
28/91
14
4.1.2 Household Sampling Design and Sample Size
The sample size (n) of the household, to represent the study area, was determined by
using following formula adopted by (Arkins and Colton, 1963) as cited by Poudyal
(2000).
P)P(1ZNd
P)P(1NZ(n)sizeSample
22
2
+
=
Where n = sample size (number of sample HHs)
N= Total number of HHs
Z= Confidence level (at 95% level, Z=1.96)
P= estimated population proportion (0.05, this maximizes the sample size)
d= error limit of 5 % (0.05)
Thus, sample size was found out to be of 70 HHs. The sample selection was made after
thorough review of available population and HH statistics of unit III of BZUC. The
required information about the number of HHs in the BZUGs and ward wise
differentiation was obtained from the operational plans of the respective BZCFs. These
HHs were selected by applying stratified random sampling by lottery box method
(without replacement), for which total number of HHs in each Community Forest User
Group (CFUG) was considered. Same formula as above was applied on CFUG
population to extract appropriate number from each CFUG (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1 Sample HHs based on the total number of HHs in the BZCFUGs
Ward No. Buffer zone community forest
user group
Total No. of HHs in the
user group
No. of Sample
HHs
1 Chetana BZCFUG 153 7
1 Jankalyan Kalika BZCFUG 135 7
1 & 2 Janahit BZCFUG 184 10
2 Jana Jagriti BZCFUG 363 18
4 Garuishanker BZCFUG 234 11
4 Manakamana BZCFUG 211 11
4 Lokhit BZCFUG 120 6
Total 1400 70
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
29/91
15
4.1.3 Questionnaire Survey, Data Calculation and Analysis
Structured and semi-structured questionnaires were prepared for HH survey having
basic focus on the HH information, fodder and fuel wood demand, BZ issues and
wildlife related issues.The collected data from the field were sorted as per the different
categories. The local units were converted into standard units as given by Nepal &
Weber 1993 (Annex I). The data brought from the field were coded and fed into
Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS: version-16) a computer software. The
output tables and charts obtained from the analysis were transferred to Microsoft Excel
2007 to change in simple and interpretable forms, which were then presented in
different charts, tables and diagrams. The analyses were primarily based on frequency,
mean, percentage, correlation etc to obtain characteristics of households according to
ethnicity and land holding category. The land holding category was made as shown in
the Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Household category as per the land holding
Land Category Land Holding (Kattha) Land Holding (Ha)
Landless 0 0
Small Farm 10 0.34
Medium Farm 10-20 0.34-0.68
Big Farm 20-80 0.68-2.72
Large Farm > 80 >2.72
Source: DNPWC/PPP, 2000
4.2 Vegetation Survey
4.2.1 Sampling
In the reconnaissance study, forest boundaries were determined by GPS (GPS model: e-
trex, Garmin USA) tracking. The boundary map of the forest was prepared by using
Arc-GIS and random sampling plots were generated out of which 41 plots were studied
(Random Sampling Method) (Map 3). Pre-registered sampling plots in the forest, were
determined by tracking with GPS.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
30/91
16
Map 3: BZCFs showing vegetation sample plots
(Source: FINNIDA, 1992)
4.2.2 Plot Design
Two hundred and five plots were laid for the vegetation survey. These included 41 plots
for tree stratum, 82 each for species at shrub stratum and herb stratum. Quadrate of size
20m20m were laid for analysis of tree stratum (DBH>10 cm). Each quadrate
comprised of two small sub quadrate of 5m5m in diagonally opposite corner (NW and
SE direction) for the analysis of shrub stratum (DBH
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
31/91
17
Classification of forest strata was done as given in the table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Classification of forest strata
Category Height DBH
Tree Not stated > 10 cm
Shrub > 10 cm < 10 cm
Herb < 10 cm Not stated
(Source: Rijal, 1994)
4.3 Sampling Parameters and Methodology
The sampling parameters, with their measurement approach, for the study were as given
in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 Sampling Parameters
Sampling Parameters Measurement approach
No. of individual tree species Count
Height of each individual tree Brunton Compass
DBH of each individual tree Using Diameter tape
Stocking of trees Ocular estimation
Lopping of each individual trees Count
Cut sump (DBH) DBH tape
Cut stump (height) Measuring tape
No. of shrub species and individual no. of each species Count
Shrub height (each individual) Calibrated stick
Shrub coverage in the plot Ocular estimation
No. of herb species and individual no. of each species Count
Herb coverage in the plot Ocular estimation
Most of the plant species were identified in the field with their local names. The
unidentified were tagged and preserved as herbarium and were identified in Central
Department of Botany and Central Department of Environmental Science, Kirtipur, and
Botanical Garden, Godavari.
4.4 Quantitative Analysis of Vegetation
4.4.1 General Parameters
The data collected in the field were calculated separately for tree, shrubs, and herbs.
Different structural parameters namely: Density, Frequency, Basal area, IVI,
Dominance Index, Species Richness, Shannon-Wiener diversity Index, Evenness Index,
were determined using formulae given by Kent and Coker (1998) and Odum (1996).
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
32/91
18
The formulae used are as follows:
10000sampledplotsofno.TotalplottheofSize
speciesofindividualof.NoDensity/ha =
100speciesallofDensityTotalspeciesindividualofDensity(%)DensityRelative =
100sampledplotsno.Total
occurredspeciesin whichplotsofno.Total(%)Frequency =
001speciestheallofsfrequencieofSum
speciesaofFrequency(%)FrequencyRelative =
2
N
niDominance
=
001speciestheallofdominanceofSum
speciesofDominance(%)(RDo)DominanceRelative =
Importance Value Index (IVI) = (RD + RF + RBA) for tree stratum
Importance Value Index (IVI) = (RD + RF + RDo) for Shrub and herb stratum
Where, RD = Relative density, RF = Relative Frequency,
RBA = Relative Basal Area and RDo =Relative Dominance
0014
(DBH))/(m(BA)AreaBasal
22 =ha
Where, DBH =Diameter of a tree at breast height
( ) 001speciesallofareabasalTotal
speciesofAreaBasal(%)RBAAreaBasalRelative =
100
speciesaofRBATBAspecies)a(ofArea/haBasal
=
2
i
N
n(c)DominanceOfIndex
=
Where, ni = importance value for each species; N = total of importance values
=
N
nlog
N
n-(H)DiversityOfIndexWiener-Shanon ii
Where, ni = No. of individual species; N = Total no. of individual species
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
33/91
19
100logN
1-S(R)richnessSpecies =
Where, S = no. of species; N = Total no. of individual species
Evenness index (E) = H/logS
Where, H = Shannon-Wiener index of diversity and S = no. of species
4.4.2 Volume and Biomass
The calculation system called Inventory Net Volume (INV) developed by the Forest
Inventory Section, Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation, Nepal (HMG 1988a and
HMG 1988b) was used for the calculation of volume and biomass of each individual
tree.
The formula given below was used to calculate volume and biomass.
In (V) = a + bln(d) + cln(h) V =ln(h)c+ln(d)b+ae
Where,
)logln( e= = Natural logarithm value
V= Total stem volume with bark (m3/ha)
d = Diameter of tree at breast height (meter)
h = Tree height in meter
a, b, and c are volume parameters, which are constant for each species but different
between species. The volume parameters were obtained from the study carried out by
Forest Survey and Statistical Division, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
(FSSD, 1991).
Biomass Calculation Procedures
Stem Biomass = Stem Volume Wood Density
Branch Biomass = Stem Biomass Ratio of Branch to Stem Biomass]
Where, the Wood density, Ratio of branch to stem biomass and Ratio of leaf to stem
biomass were obtained from Forestry sector master Plan, 1988 (HMG 1988a).
4.4.3 Estimates of Annual and Sustainable Yield
The Master Plan for the forestry sector of Nepal (MPFSN) has estimated the annual
yield of different forest types of Tarai for the Central Development Region (Table 4.5).The percent annual yield estimated by Master Plan in similar forest types of Central
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
34/91
20
Development Region were used to estimate the annual yields of Buffer zone forest in
the study area.
Defining sustainable wood harvest as the sum of stem and branch growth, and stem and
branch mortality with only 15% of stem growth allocated for timber and rest (85%) for
fuel wood assuming recovery factor for Tarai as 90% (HMG 1988a). The annual
accumulation of dead wood is 4.9 % of the annual yield (HMG 1988a). Hence, for the
calculation of fuel wood from dead wood, 4.9% of total wood was considered as fuel
wood.
Stem Annual Yield = Stem Biomass Percent Yield
Branch Annual Yield = Branch Biomass Percent Yield
Where, Percent Yield is obtained as per the Forestry sector Master Plan, 1988 (HMG,
1988 a), as shown in the Table 4.5.
Table 4.5 Growing Stock and Annual Yield (tons/ha) in the natural forest of Tarai
Regions of Western Development Region, Nepal
Forest typeForest Biomass Annual Yield Percent yield
Stem Branch Foliage Stem Branch Foliage Stem Branch Foliage
Sal 107.7 42.2 7.24 5.41 2.12 0.360 5.03 5.02 4.97
Tarai mixed 86.1 59 3.7 4.20 2.90 0.200 4.88 4.92 5.41
(Source: HMG 1988a)
Sustainable Fuel wood Yield = 85% of Sustainable Stem Supply + 100% of Sustainable
Branch Supply where, Sustainable Stem Supply = 90% of Stem Annual Yield
Sustainable Branch Supply = 90% of Branch Annual Yield
Sustainable Foliage Supply = 90% of Foliage Annual Yield
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
35/91
21
Fodder yield from Buffer zone community forests was calculated on the basis of Total
Digestible Nutrient (TDN) yields for various categories of land as shown in the table 4.6
(HMG, 1988b).
Table4.6 Fodder Yield from various land categories
Land category TDN Yield (t/ha/yr)
Hardwood Forest, grazing 0.34
Conifer Forest, grazing 0.1
Mixed Forest, grazing 0.15-0.2
Forest, Plantation/Hand cutting 1.44
Shrub/Burnt forest, grazing 0.77
Waste Land/Over Grazed land, grazing 0.24
Flat Land, grazing 0.58(Source: HMG, 1988b)
4.4.4 Stand Size
The stand size presented below in table 4.7 is solely based on classification of Forest
Inventory Division (1995).
Table 4.7 Stand size classification
SN Stand Size DBH (cm)
1 Sapling 50
4.4.5 Stocking
The classification of stocking of trees are presented in table 4.8 based on forest density i.e.
Crown Cover Percentage (CCP).
Table 4.8 Stocking of Tree Stratum
SN Description % Crown Cover
1 Poorly stocked 10-39
2 Medium Stocked 40-69
3 Well Stocked 70
(Source: FRSC, 1995)
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
36/91
22
CHAPTER: FIVE
RESULT
5.1 Socio-economic Survey and Household Wellbeing
5.1.1 Respondents
The general characteristics of the respondents were summarized in the following table
5.1. The age of the respondents varied between 17 to 70 years. Majority of the
respondents (91.43%) were adult and only 8.57% were the late settlers; therefore the
data is assumed to possess good reliability.
Table 5.1 General Characteristics of the Respondents
Category Characters No. of respondents Total %
Sex Male 19 27.14
Female 51 72.86
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
37/91
23
5.2 Socio-economic Status
5.2.1 Population Structure
The population size of the 70 sample households (HHs) was found to be 484, with an
average family size of 6.91 per HH. The samples HHs were represented by 254
(52.48%) males and 230 (47.52%) females. Tamang family (43 HHs) had population
size of 281 (58.06%), while that of Brahmin/Chettri (21 HHs), Dalits (3 HH), Chepang
(1 HH) and Magar (2 HHs) were 151 (31.20%), 25 (5.17%), 16 (3.31%) and 11 (2.27%)
respectively. The study area accounted for 275 (56.81%) working age population (15-59
years), 177 (36.57%) young age dependent population (
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
38/91
24
and Tamang (Table 5.4). Illiteracy was most prominent among small farm holders
(22.16%) and large farm holders had better access to higher education (Table 5.5).
Table 5.4 Educational Status as per Ethnicity
Ethnic group Illiterate Primaryeducation
UnderSLC
SLC Intermediate Graduateor above
Tamang 58 (22.83) 141 (55.51) 40 (15.75) 13 (5.12) 1 (0.39) 1 (0.39)
Brahmin/Chhetri 20 (14.49) 49 (35.51) 44 (31.88) 14 (10.14) 10 (7.25) 1 (0.72)
Dalit 5 (21.74) 9 (39.13) 9 (39.13) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Chepang/Magar 3 (13.04) 16 (69.57) 3 (13.04) 1 (4.35) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Total 86 (19.63) 215 (49.09) 96 (21.92) 28 (6.39) 11 (2.51) 2 (0.46)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
Table 5.5 Educational Status as per Landholding
Land holdingcategory
Illiterate Primaryeducation
UnderSLC
SLC Intermediate Graduateor above
Landless 1 (11.11) 7 (77.88) 1 (11.11) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Small farm 43 (22.16) 104 (53.61) 33 (17.01) 11 (5.67) 2 (1.03) 1 (0.52)
Medium farm 28 (21.37) 63 (48.09) 32 (24.43) 7 (5.34) 1 (0.76) 0 (0.00)
Large farm 14 (13.46) 41 (39.42) 30 (28.85) 10 (9.62) 8 (7.69) 1 (0.96)
Total 86 (19.63) 215 (49.09) 96 (21.92) 28 (6.39) 11 (2.51) 2 (0.46)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
5.2.3 Access to Drinking Water and State of Sanitation
Only 54 HHs (77.14%) among the total sample HHs had access to tapped source of
drinking water while rests of the HHs were depending on spring water. The state of
sanitation was quite poor as 42 HHs (60.00%) had no lavatory facilities.
Brahmin/Chhetris were unsurpassed concerning both sanitation and access to tapped
drinking water. HHs with medium farms had the best access to tapped drinking water.
Table 5.6 and Table 5.7 elucidate the sources of drinking water and condition of
sanitation as per ethnic groups and farm sizes.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
39/91
25
Table 5.6 Sources of Drinking Water and State of Sanitation as per Ethnicity
Ethnicity
Drinking water source Sanitation
Tapped
water
Spring water No toilet Ordinary (without
septic tank)
Modern (with
septic tank)
Tamang 30 (69.77) 13 (30.23) 34 (79.07) 5 (11.63) 4 (9.30)Brahmin/Chhetri 20 (95.24) 1 (4.76) 6 (28.57) 8 (38.10) 7 (33.33)
Dalit 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 2 (66.67) 0 (0.00)
Chepang/Magar 2 (66.67) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33)
Total 54 (77.14) 16 (22.86) 42 (60.00) 16 (22.86) 12 (17.14)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
Table 5.7 Sources of Drinking Water and State of Sanitation as per Farm Size
Farm size
Drinking water source Sanitation
Tappedwater Springwater No toilet Ordinary (withoutseptic tank) Modern (withseptic tank)
Landless 1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 1 (50.00) 0 (0.00) 1 (50.00)
Small farm 23 (74.19) 8 (25.81) 23 (74.19) 6 (19.35) 2 (6.45)
Medium farm 20 (86.96) 3 (13.04) 15 (65.22) 4 (17.39) 4 (17.39)
Large farm 10 (71.43) 4 (28.57) 3 (21.43) 6 (42.86) 5 (35.71)
Total 54 (77.14) 16 (22.86) 42 (60.00) 16 (22.86) 12 (17.14)
The numbers in the parentheses indicate percentage
5.2.4 Access to Means of Information
A notable proportion of HHs in the study area had radio (49 HHs; 70.00%), television
(21 HHs; 30.00%) and mobile phones (35 HHs; 50.00%). Only 3 (4.29%) HHs had
CDMA phone and only 1 HH (1.43%) had computer. 14 HHs (20.00%) had no access to
any means of information (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Access to different means of information
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Access to means of information
NumberofHHs
None
Radio
Mobile phone
Radio and TV
Radio and Mobile phone
TV and Mobile phone
Radio and CDMA phone
Mobile and CDMA phone
Radio, TV and Mobile phone
Radio, TV, Mobile, CDMA
Phone and Computer
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
40/91
26
5.2.5 Farm Size
Of the total study HHs, 2 HHs (2.86%) were landless, 31 HHs (44.29%) had small farm
(0- 0.34 ha); 23 HHs (32.86%) had medium farm (0.34-0.68 ha) and 14 HHs (20.00%)
had big farm (0.68-2.72 ha). No HH had farm larger than 2.72 ha (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Landholding by HHs
Most of the Tamang family had small farm and medium farm. Dalit and
Chepang/Magar family were either landless or had only a small farm while no otherethnic group except Tamang and Brahmin/Chhetri had big farm (Table 5.8). The
average per capita land distribution was found to be 0.08 ha while the mean farm size
averaged to 0.53ha/HH. Brahmin/Chhetri HHs had highest per capita land holding
followed by Tamang HHs (Table 5.9).
Table 5.8 Farm Category as per Ethnic group
Ethnic group Landless Small farm Medium farm Big farm
Tamang 1 20 18 4
Brahmin/Chhetri 0 6 5 10
Dalits 0 3 0 0
Chepang/Magar 1 2 0 0
Total 2 31 23 14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Landless Small farm Medium farm Big farm
NumberofHHs
Farm size
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
41/91
27
Table 5.9 Land Holding on the Basis of Ethnicity
Ethnic Group Total farm
size (Ha)
Mean farm
size (Ha)
Per capita land
distribution (Ha)
Standard
Deviation
Std.Error
of Mean
Tamang 18.98 0.44 0.07 0.28 0.04
Brahmin/Chhetri 16.22 0.77 0.11 0.60 0.13
Dalit 0.77 0.26 0.03 0.05 0.03
Chepang/Magar 1.19 0.40 0.04 0.57 0.33
Total 37.16 0.53 0.08 0.43 0.05
5.2.6 Crop Production and Sufficiency
Maize was the main food crop being produced by 67 HHs (95.71%), while ginger and
pulses were main cash crops. Out of 70 sample HHs, 45 were food deficit, 11 were food
surplus, 12 HHs had production just enough to balance their subsistence needs, while 2
HHs were not involved in agriculture at all; they owned retail shops. Table 5.10 shows
the production of food crops and cash crops as per ethnic group.
Table 5.10 Crop Production and Sufficiency as per the Ethnic Group
Ethnic group
Food crop
production
(Kg/yr)
Cash crop
production
(Kg/yr)
Surplus
HHs*
Deficit
HHs*
Balance
HHs*
MeanPer
capitaMean
Per
capita
Total
%
Total
%
Total
%
Tamang 1009.80 154.52 621.35 95.08 6.98 74.42 18.60
Brahmin/Chhetri 2170.05 301.79 952.24 132.43 38.10 38.10 19.05
Dalit 546.67 65.60 363.33 43.60 0.00 100.00 0.00Chepang/Magar 1458.67 162.07 483.33 53.70 0.00 66.67 0.00
* Only food crops have been considered
Majority of the sampled HHs (38.57%) had food availability for 6 to 9 months. Only
(34.29%) of the sampled HHs had food enough for more than 9 months, while (4.29%)
had food sufficiency for less than 3 months (Table 5.11).
Table 5.11 Food Availability Period
Food Security Period No. of HHs %
9 months 24 34.29
Not involved in agriculture 2 2.86
Total 70 100.00
Among the different ethnic groups Brahmin/Chhetri had the highest food availability
while food insecurity was most marked among Dalit group (Table 5.11). No Dalit
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
42/91
28
family had food availability for more than 9 months. Two HHs did not rely on
agriculture as they owned groceries. Food availability was further analysed as per the
land holdings of HHs (Figure 4). The correlation of food availability with landholdings
was positive [r=0.492; correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)].
Table 5.12 Food Availability as per the ethnicity
Ethnic Group
Food Availability
9
months
Not involved in
agriculture
Tamang 2 (4.65) 11 (25.58) 18 (41.86) 12 (27.91) 0 (0.00)
Brahmin/Chhetri 0 (0.00) 2 (9.52) 6 (28.57) 12 (57.14) 1 (4.76)
Dalit 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 1 (33.33) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00)
Chepang/Magar 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 2 (66.67) 0 (0.00) 1 (33.33)
The numbers in the parenthesis indicate percentage.
Figure 4: Food availability as per the landholdings of HHs
Though agriculture was found to be the major livelihood option for most of the HHs, 46
HHs (65.71%) had to rely on other income sources to fulfill their food insufficiency as
only 22 HHs (31.43%) had enough food crop production to support their family, while
for 2 HHs (2.86%) agriculture was not the livelihood option (Table 5.13).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Landless
Small farm
Medium farm
Large farm
Farm
size
Number of Households
9 months
Not in agriculture
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
43/91
29
Table 5.13 Alternative Income Sources to Manage Food insufficiency.
Alternative Income Source Number of HHs Percent
No deficit 22 31.43
Wage labour 14 20.00
Loan 4 5.71Wage labour +Loan 12 17.14
Rearing livestock 2 2.86
Skilled labour 3 4.29
Business 2 2.86
Wage labour+Rearing livestock 3 4.29
Loan+Rearing livestock 3 4.29
Skilled labour +Loan 3 4.29
Not involved in agriculture 2 2.86
Total 70 100.00
5.2.7 Livestock Holding and Fodder Consumption
Livestock rearing was common off-farm income generating activity of the locals. 67
HHs (95.71%) were found to be rearing livestock; cattle, buffalos and goats being the
major livestock reared. The different livestock types were synthesized into single unit
called Livestock Unit (LU) (Annex II) as per Nepal and Weber (2003) for further
analysis. Total and mean LU of studied area was found to be 164.14/HH and 2.45/HH,
respectively. As per the landholding size, HHs with small farm held highest portion of
total LU (61.84) with mean LU 2.13/HH (Table 5.14); and as per the ethnicity, Tamang
HHs held highest portion of total LU (93.09) with mean LU 2.22/HH (Table 5.15).
Table 5.14 Distribution of Livestock on the Basis of Landholding
Land Holding Cow/Ox Buffalo Goat Total
Livestock Unit
Livestock
Unit/HH
Landless 1 0 7 1.91 1.91
Small farm 59 15 63 61.84 2.13
Medium farm 48 12 81 55.50 2.41
Big farm 35 12 69 44.89 3.21
Total 143 39 220 164.14 2.45
Table 5.15 Distribution of Livestock on the Basis of Ethnicity
Ethnic Group Cow/Ox Buffalo Goat Total Livestock
Unit
Livestock
Unit/HH
Tamang 87 12 149 93.09 2.22
Brahmin/Chhetri 42 22 58 55.56 2.78
Dalit 8 5 4 9.97 3.32
Chepang/Magar 6 0 9 5.52 2.76Total 143 39 220 164.14 2.45
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
44/91
30
Stall feeding (26.87%) for livestock was more prominent than open grazing (10.45%) in
the study area. However all the remaining HHs (62.8%) having livestock were
practicing both stall feeding as well as open grazing.
Total fodder demand of the studied community was found to be 1596.15 tons/year and
total mean fodder demand was 23.82 tons/year/HH. Mean fodder demand per year per
livestock was lowest (4.71 tons/yr/LU) for landless, while others had demand near to
the total average (9.72 tons/yr/LU). Table 5.16 and Table 5.17 elucidate the fodder
demand in relation to LU on the basis of land holding and ethnicity, respectively.
Table 5.16 Fodder Demand as per the Land Holding
Fodder Demand (tons/yr)
Land Holding N* TotalDemand
Mean demand/HH(tons/yr)
TotalLivestock Unit
Mean demand/HH(tons/yr/LU)
Landless 1 9 9.00 1.91 4.71
Small Farm 29 632.85 21.82 61.84 10.23
Medium Farm 23 496.05 21.57 55.50 8.94
Big Farm 14 458.25 32.73 44.89 10.21
Total 67 1596.15 23.82 164.14 9.72
*HHs having no livestock were not considered
Table 5.17 Fodder Demand as per Ethnicity
Fodder Demand (Tons/Year)
Ethnic Group N* TotalDemand
Mean demand/HH(tons/yr)
Total LivestockUnit
Mean demand/HH(tons/yr/LU)
Tamang 42 819.85 19.52 93.09 8.81
Brahmin/Chhetri 20 597.8 29.89 55.56 10.76
Dalit 3 121.5 40.5 9.97 12.19
Chepang/Magar 2 57 28.5 5.52 10.33
Total 67 1596.15 23.82 164.14 9.72
*HHs having no livestock were not considered
The fodder demand was fulfilled largely from BZCFs as 71.64% of the livestock
holding HHs were fully or partially dependent on it, while remaining HHs fulfilled their
fodder demand from their own land (Figure 5). HHs having small farm relied more on
buffer zone community forests than others and landless HHs were absolutely dependent
on buffer zone community forests (Figure 6).
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
45/91
31
Figure 5: Green fodder source
Figure 6: Green fodder source on the basis of farm size
Correlation analysis performed between different fodder and livestock related variables
as shown in Table 5.18 confirmed high positive correlation (r=0.940)between LU and
fodder demand (tons/year). Similar analysis which was carried out between farm size
versus fodder demand and LU versus farm size displayed positive correlation as well
(Table 5.18).
Table 5.18 Correlation Between Different Parameters
Variables Pearson's correlation coefficient (r)
Farm size (ha) Vs Livestock unit 0.255**
Farm size(ha) Vs Fodder demand (tons/year) 0.315**
Livestock unit Vs Fodder demand (tons/year) 0.940*
Family size Vs Fodder Demand 0.403*
*Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed) **Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (1- tailed)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
BZCF own land BZCF+own land
Fodder source
P
ercen
t
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Landless Small farm Mediumfarm
Large farm
NumberofHHs
Farm size
BZCF+Ownland
Own land
BZCF
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
46/91
32
5.2.8 Energy Sources
For lighting purpose, kerosene and electricity were the energy sources used by the
locals, but 17 (24.29%) of the HHs were absolutely dependent on kerosene as they had
no access to electricity (Table 5.19). Fuel wood was the prime source of energy for
cooking food and making "kudo" (Animal feed) in all the 70 HHs (100%). For cooking
purpose, 9 HHs (12.86%) were using biogas along with fuel wood. Figure 7 and 8
illustrate biogas installation as per the ethnicity and farm size respectively.
Table 5.19 Sources of Energy
Energy Source Number of HHs Percent of Total HHs
Fuel wood 70 100.00
Kerosene 68 97.14
Electricitya) Authorized 29 41.43
b) Unauthorized 24 34.29
c) No access 17 24.29
Biogas 9 12.86
Figure 7: Biogas plant installation as per ethnicity
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Tamang Brahmin/Chhetri Dalits Chepang/Magar
NumberofHouseholds
Ethnicity
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
47/91
33
Figure 8: Biogas installation as per the farm size
5.2.8.1 Fuel Wood
Out of the total 70 sample HHs, 65 HHs (92.86%) wholly or partially depended upon
BZCFs for fuel wood, while 21 HHs (30.00%) were entirely reliant on it. The total fuel
wood extraction was found to be 122.72 tons/year out of which 40.28 ton/year was
entirely taken from BZCFs solely (Table 5.20). The per capita fuel wood consumption
of the sample HHs was 0.25 tons/year, while mean fuel wood consumption per HH
accounted for 1.75 tons/year.
Table 5.20 Various Sources of Fuel Wood
Fuel wood Source Number of
HHs
Total Fuel wood
extraction
(tons/year)
Distribution
(%)
Mean Fuel wood
extraction (tons/year/HH)
BZCF 21 (30.00%) 40.28 32.82 1.92
Own land 5 (7.14%) 7 5.70 1.40
BZCF + Own land 44 (62.86%) 75.44 61.47 1.71
Total 70 (100.00%) 122.72 100.00 1.75
Out of 43 Tamang HHs, 17 HHs (39.53%) were found to be extracting fuel wood
entirely from BZCFs, compared to 3 HHs (14.19%) from Brahmin/Chhetri family.
Similarly, 1 Chepang/Magar HH (33.33%) and no Dalit HH were using BZCFs (Figure
9). The small farm holders were extracting most of their fuel wood from BZCFs
whereas no big farm holders were extracting fuel wood from the community forests
(Figure 10). The medium farm holders had the highest mean fuel wood demand
(tons/year/HH) and landless had the lowest. The per capita fuel wood demand
(tons/year/person) was also highest for medium farm holders and lowest for landless
0
1
2
3
4
5
Landless Small farm Medium farm Big Farm
NumberofHouseholds
Farm category
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
48/91
34
(Table 5.21). The mean fuel wood demands (tons/year/HH) of Tamang,
Brahmin/Chhetri, Dalit and Chepang/Magar HHs were 1.74, 1.81, 1.80 and 1.49
respectively. Tamangs had the highest per capita fuel wood demand while
Chepang/Magar had the lowest (Table 5.22).
Figure 9: Sources of fuel wood as per ethnicity
Figure 10: Sources of fuel wood as per farm size
Table 5.21 Fuel Wood Consumption of HHs as per Farm Size
Fuel wood consumption Landless Small farm Medium farm Big Farm
No. of HHs 2 31 23 14
Total (tons/yr) 2.08 51.20 42.72 26.72
Mean (tons/yr/HH) 1.04 1.65 1.86 1.91
Standard deviation 0.79 0.61 1.11 1.00
Per capita (tons/yr/person) 0.21 0.24 0.28 0.24
0 20 40 60
Tamang
Brahmin/Chhetri
Dalits
Chepang/Magar
Number of HHs
Ethnicgroup
CF
own land
CF + ownland
0 20 40
Landless
Small farm
Medium farm
Large farm
Number of HHs
Farms
ize
CF
own land
CF + ownland
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
49/91
35
Table 5.22 Fuel Wood Consumption of HHs as per the Ethnicity
Fuel wood consumption Tamang Brahmin/Chhetri Dalit Chepang/Magar
No. of HHs 43 21 3 3
Total (tons/yr) 74.92 37.92 5.40 4.48
Mean (tons/yr/HH) 1.74 1.81 1.80 1.49
Standard deviation 0.89 0.95 0.60 0.96
Per capita
(tons/yr/person)0.27 0.25 0.22 0.17
Table 5.23 Correlation of Fuel Wood Demand with Different Parameters
Variables Pearson's correlation coefficient(r)
Fuel wood demand (tons/year) Vs Farm size 0.227*
Fuel wood demand (tons/year) Vs Family size 0.458**
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-
tailed).
5.3 Buffer Zone Community Forest
The study area included 7 community forests with a total area of 2039.43 ha with 1400
HHs wholly or partially dependent on the forest resources. Out of the 7 buffer zone
community forests, the average forest area per HHs was highest (2.37ha/HH) for Lokhit
BZCF, while lowest (0.39ha/HH) for Janajagriti BZCF (Table 5.24).
Table 5.24Average Buffer Zone Community Forest Area (ha) per HHs
Buffer zone community forest Area (ha) No. of HHs in
the user group
Average forest area
per HH (ha)
Jankalyan Kalika BZCF 293.2 135 2.17
Jana Jagriti BZCF 141 363 0.39
Janahit BZCF 434.63 184 2.36
Garuishanker BZCF 300 234 1.28
Chetana BZCF 164.6 153 1.08
Manakamana BZCF 422 211 2
Lokhit BZCF 284 120 2.37
Total 2039.4 1400 1.46
Source: Operational plans of respective BZCFs
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
50/91
36
5.3.1 Acquaintance with Buffer Zone Activity and Budget Allocation
Most of the respondents were unacquainted with buffer zone activity at all. Twenty out
of the total 70 respondents found the activities of buffer zone to be unsatisfactory, while
one of them was satisfied with the activities. Similarly, when asked about budget
allocation, only 7 were aware about the budget allocation; 5 of them said that the budget
is insufficient while 2 told that the budget was sufficient.
Figure 11: Acquaintance with Buffer Zone activity
5.3.2 Acquaintance with the Condition of the Buffer Zone Community Forests
Of the total respondent, 47 (67.15%) respondents perceived that the condition of buffer
zone community forests has improved than the past and only 7 (10%) said that present
condition of buffer zone community forests is very good, whereas 15 (21.40%) had no
idea about the condition of the forests (Table 5.25).
Table 5.25 Acquaintance with the Condition of BZCFs
Condition of BZCFs Opinions
Very good Good Satisfactory Bad No ideaPast 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 55 (78.60) 15 (21.40)
Present 7 (10.00) 13 (18.60) 27 (38.60) 8 (11.40) 15 (21.40)
5.4 Wildlife
5.4.1 Status of Wildlife
Birds and monkey were the most frequent wildlife reported by the villagers during
informal interviews; while a few reported that jackal and leopard were also seen. Only
12.86% reported wildlife population as increasing, while 18.57% said that wildlife
49; 70%20; 29%
1; 1%
No idea
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
51/91
37
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Increasing Decreasing No change No idea
PercentofRespondents
Wildlife population
population were decreasing basically due to habitat destruction and 48.57% said there
were no significant changes in wildlife population (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Respondents' perception on change in wildlife population
5.4.2 Problems caused by wildlife
Only, 19 HHs (27.14%) reported crop damage by parrots and monkeys which was not
so significant. Apart from this, no other species was reported for crop depredation.
There were not any human casualties or livestock loss, or any damage to physical assets
within two years.
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
52/91
38
5.5 Vegetation Analysis
5.5.1 Tree Stratum
Out of 41 sample plots 1 plot had no tree species. There were 326 live trees of 26
different species recorded in the sample plots. The maximum tree diameter noted was
118cm and the total tree density was 198.78/ha. Shorea robusta had the highest density
(111.59/ha) and represented 56.13% of the total tree density followed by Schima
wallichi (Density 21.75/ha; Relative Density 10.74%) (Table 5.26). Total basal area per
hectare of all species was found to be 23.36 m2/ ha and Shorea robusta alone
represented 76.11% of it. The importance value index (IVI) was also highest forShorea
robusta followed by Schima wallichi and Terminalia alata.
Table 5.26 Density, Frequency, Basal area and IVI of plant species at tree stratum
Name of Species D
(No/ha)
RD
(%)
F
(%)
RF
(%)
BA
(m2ha
-1)
RBA
(%)
IVI
Shorea robusta 111.59 56.13 85.37 27.56 17.78 76.11 159.80
Schima wallichi 21.34 10.74 36.59 11.81 1.37 5.85 28.40
Terminalia alata 9.15 4.60 24.39 7.87 0.53 2.25 14.73
Lagerstroemia parviflora 7.93 3.99 21.95 7.09 0.47 2.03 13.11
Semecarpus anacardium 6.71 3.37 21.95 7.09 0.31 1.32 11.78
Pinus roxburghii 6.10 3.07 7.32 2.36 1.05 4.48 9.91
Dellenia pentagyna 4.27 2.15 12.20 3.94 0.53 2.28 8.36
Phyllanthus emblica 3.66 1.84 12.20 3.94 0.05 0.20 5.98
Elaegnus parviflora 3.66 1.84 4.88 1.57 0.19 0.81 4.23
Cleistocalyx operculatus 3.66 1.84 12.20 3.94 0.09 0.39 6.16
Mallotus philippinensis 3.66 1.84 9.76 3.15 0.14 0.62 5.61
Careya arborea 3.05 1.53 7.32 2.36 0.12 0.53 4.43
Badkaulo(?) 1.83 0.92 9.76 3.15 0.11 0.48 4.55
Terminalia bellirica 1.83 0.92 7.32 2.36 0.22 0.96 4.24
Premna integrifolia 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.09 1.49
Terminalia chebula 1.22 0.61 4.88 1.57 0.10 0.41 2.60
Eugenia jambolana 1.22 0.61 7.32 2.36 0.07 0.31 3.28
Holarrhena pubescens 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.06 1.46
Tiyari (?) 1.22 0.61 2.44 0.79 0.05 0.22 1.62Airikath (?) 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.10 1.20
Michelia champaca 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.07 1.17
Ficus lacor 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.03 1.13
Sapium insigne 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.05 1.14
Murraya koenigii 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.01 0.05 1.15
Ficus auriculata 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.05 0.22 1.32
Albizia lucidor 0.61 0.31 2.44 0.79 0.02 0.07 1.16
Total 198.78 100.00 309.76 100.00 23.36 100.00 300.00
? = Local name, D = Density, RD = Relative density, F = Frequency, RF = Relative frequency, BA =
Basal area, RBA = Relative basal area, IVI = Importance value index, ha = Hectare
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
53/91
39
From the stand size classification, it was observed that largest proportions of trees were
of small timber class (38.34%); while, sapling, poles and large timber were 11.04%,
33.13% and 17.48%, respectively. Meanwhile, height classifications of trees showed
that higher percentage (38.65%) of trees were of intermediate height class i.e. in the
range of 10m to 20m.
Fig 13: Stand size classification of trees
Fig 14: Height classification of trees
Of the 41 studied plots, 17 plots were medium stocked crown cover; while, 13 were
poor and 10 were well stocked, and 1 plot was categorized for no stocking as it had no
trees (Table5.27).
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Large sawtimber
Smal sawtimber
Poles Saplings
Percent
Stand size
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
30m
Percent
Height class
Small Timber
Mean DBH=32.83 cm
Standard Dev. =20 cm
Total No. of trees=326
Mean =15.20 m
Standard Dev. =7.18 m
Total No. of trees=326
Large Timber
-
7/29/2019 STUDY OF HANDIKHOLA BUFFER ZONE VDC OF PARSA WILDLIFE RESERVE IN RELATION WITH NEED AND AVAILABILIT
54/91
40
Table 5.27 Stocking of the Forests
Stocking Crown cover (%) No. of plots Area (m2) Percent
No stocking - 1 400 2.44
Poorly stocked 10-39 13 5200 31.71
Medium stocked 40-69 17 6800 41.46Well stocked 70 10 4000 24.39
5.5.2 Shrub Strat