Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

Residents perceptions of Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal

Teri D. Allendorf a, , James L.D. Smith a , Dorothy H. Anderson b
a

Conservation Biology Program, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA b Forest Resources, University of Minnesota. St. Paul, Minnesota, USA

Received 8 April 2006; received in revised form 25 January 2007; accepted 31 January 2007 Available online 8 March 2007

Abstract The complex relationship between residents and protected areas continues to be an obstacle to successful conservation of protected areas. One of the key components of this relationship is local residents perceptions of protected areas. This study explores key issues in the relationship between residents and Royal Bardia National Park in western Nepal. We discuss residents conicting perceptions of benets and problems of the area, their perceptions of entities such as park management that affect their relationship with the park, and their perceptions of NGOs and associated conservation and development projects. 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Attitudes; Protected areas; Parkpeople relationships; Perceptions; Conservation; Protected area management; Nepal

1. Introduction Protected areas, such as national parks and reserves, are critical components of national biodiversity conservation programs. However, a host of problems have hindered their effectiveness in protecting biodiversity (Newmark, 1996; Woodroffe and Ginsberg, 1998). One of these problems is the relationship between protected areas and local residents. Many have argued that conservation strategies must address local residents concerns in order to conserve protected areas over the longterm (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995; Furze et al., 1996; Hough and Sherpa, 1989; McNeely and Miller, 1984; Newmark et al., 1993; Zube, 1986). However, this relationship continues to be an obstacle to successful conservation, in part, because the complex relationships between people and protected areas are still poorly understood and the connections to broader issues often remain unacknowledged (Berkes, 2004; Brosius and Russell, 2003; Brown, 2002; Wilshusen et al., 2002). Many approaches have been taken to understand the Parkpeople relationship. These approaches include, for example, describing residents resource use of protected areas

Corresponding author. Present address: 110 Elm St., Mazomanie, WI 53560, USA. Tel.: +1 608 795 4225. E-mail address: teriallendorf@yahoo.com (T.D. Allendorf). 0169-2046/$ see front matter 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.01.015

(Brown, 1997; Dearden et al., 1996; De Boer and Baquete, 1998; Maikhuri et al., 2000; Nepal and Weber, 1995; Sharma and Shaw, 1993; Straede and Helles, 2000) and crop damage and livestock depredation by wildlife (Gadd, 2005; Heinen, 1993; Hill, 1998; Kharel, 1997; Nepal and Weber, 1995; Newmark et al., 1993; Oli et al., 1994; Parry and Campbell, 1992; Sekhar, 1998; Sharma, 1990; Studsrd and Wegge, 1995). More recently, residents perceptions of conservation and development projects associated with protected areas (Bauer, 2003; Ite, 1996; Jim and Xu, 2002; Mehta and Kellert, 1998; Mkanda and Munthali, 1994; Sekhar, 2003; Straede and Helles, 2000; Wainwright and Wehrmeyer, 1998; Walpole and Goodwin, 2001) and the effect of projects on attitudes toward protected areas (Boonzaier, 1996; Gillingham and Lee, 1999; Ineld and Namara, 2001; Sekhar, 2003; Songorwa, 1999) have been considered. Some research has also considered the social context of residents living adjacent to protected areas (Abel and Blaikie, 1986; Brown, 1997; Daniels and Bassett, 2002; Fortin and Gagnon, 1999; Maikhuri et al., 2000; Slater, 2002). Resource use, wildlife damage, and the effect of conservation and development projects are all important ways of understanding the relationship that residents have with protected areas. However, underlying all of these aspects of the relationship, and fundamental to nding ways to improve the relationship, are peoples perceptions of the protected areas. Peoples perceptions are critical in designing appropriate strategies and policies in order

34

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

to address local residents needs and expectations (Akama et al., 1995; Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995; Heinen, 1993; Ineld, 1988; Ite, 1996; Mehta and Heinen, 2001; Mukherjee and Borad, 2004; Sah and Heinen, 2001; Weladji et al., 2003). Using a qualitative approach to understand the relationship that residents have with protected areas in this study, we dene the relationship between people and Royal Bardia National Park in residents terms and explore key issues in the relationship from their perspectives. Qualitative methods are better suited to reveal the nature of protected area issues from the perspectives of residents and are more appropriate in an exploratory study, such as this, for revealing a range of issues and perspectives (Raval, 1994). In this paper, our objectives are to describe and clarify residents attitudes regarding the costs and benets of RBNP, explore the effects of peoples perceptions of park management and the government on their relationship with the park, and examine peoples perceptions of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) conservation projects. These objectives arise from the results of a preliminary open-ended survey conducted by the rst author to determine residents perceptions of the benets and problems of the Royal Bardia National in Nepal (Allendorf, 2006), which raised these three areas of further study. First, respondents held conicting perceptions of the protected area in that they reported both liking and disliking that park management did not allow people to extract natural resources, such as fuelwood and fodder, from the park. Other studies have shown that while people do generally support conservation of protected areas (De Boer and Baquete, 1998; Mehta and Heinen, 2001; Mukherjee and Borad, 2004; Picard, 2003; Weladji et al., 2003), they resent management policies that restrict their livelihood activities within the protected areas (Bauer, 2003; Ineld, 1988). Second, although the survey asked people their perceptions of the benets and problems that the park caused, people responded

by describing their perceptions of other entities, such as park management, the military that guards the park, and the government. Previous research has shown that one of the most critical determinants of peoples attitudes toward protected areas is their relationships with and perceptions of management (Holmes, 2003). For example, a poor relationship with park staff is often associated with negative attitudes toward the protected area (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995). Third, respondents did not mention entities that they might have been expected to link to the park. Although nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) had been implementing conservation and development projects in the area, no one mentioned these NGOs or their projects either as benets or problems. Given that these projects are implemented in order to improve peoples attitudes toward the park and decrease their illegal extraction, it was notable that people were not directly linking these projects to the park. 2. Royal Bardia National Park Royal Bardia National Park (RBNP), located in the southwestern lowlands, or terai, of Nepal (Fig. 1), was established in 1969 as a hunting reserve. It became a national park in 1989. The 968 km2 area is managed by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC). The park authority consists of a chief warden, three assistant wardens, and a senior warden in charge of the eastern park sub-quarters. Rangers, senior game scouts, and game scouts rotate duty at posts located throughout the park. Like most national parks and reserves in Nepal, the Royal Nepalese Army is responsible for guarding the park and enforcing its rules and regulations, including controlling poachers, stopping illegal shing, checking boundaries, preventing encroachment into the park, and preventing livestock grazing and extraction of resources by area residents. The army

Fig. 1. Map of Royal Bardia National Park in western Nepal.

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

35

operates independently from the DNPWC at each protected area, and the extent of coordination and cooperation between the two is at the discretion of the commanding ofcer at the army post. At the time of the study, two army companies (320 individuals) were posted at 16 guard posts and in the park headquarters for assignments of two years. Furthermore, the army battalions and their commanders that rotate through RBNP every two years have little incentive to build long-term relationships with local communities. A common perception in the military is that an assignment at RBNP is a lucrative posting because of the potential income from bribes from local people and outsiders who want access to subsistence resources and more valuable resources, such as timber. Extraction of natural resources from RBNP is illegal except for the cutting of thatch and other grasses, which is allowed for a 1014 day period once a year, and for which residents must pay a modest fee. Extraction of thatch is an important economic park benet to people. In 1992, the worth of the thatch and other grasses extracted was substantial (565.50 NR per household) compared to the average monthly income for rural households (1192 NR) (Stre, 1993). Fishing, for which a permit is required, is also allowed. A number of canals inside RBNP connect the Geruwa and Babai Rivers to adjacent agriculture elds. These canals were built by local residents before the establishment of the park. People are allowed to enter RBNP to control the ow of water and to maintain the canals (Upreti, 1994). It should be noted, however, that residents do commonly illegally gather fuelwood and timber, as well as other non-timber forest products. When the initial survey was conducted in 1995, only one nongovernmental organization (NGO), the King Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation (KMTNC), was conducting development and conservation projects, including health, community forestry, animal husbandry, and nature guide and lodge management training, with residents living around the park. It maintained its headquarters adjacent to one of the villages where interviews were conducted. One other organization, Women in Environment, was implementing education and daycare programs in one of the communities. At the time of follow-up interviews in 1997, so many projects existed in the area that a management structure called the Bardia Integrated Conservation Project (BICP) and administered by the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation, had been created to coordinate project activities. Organizations active in the area included KMTNC, the UNDP Parks and People Project, WWF-Nepal, and CARENepal, which were all conducting conservation and development activities. 3. Methods Thirty-ve in-depth interviews were conducted in three communities adjacent to RBNP. Since the overall objectives of this exploratory study were to describe perceptions rather than predict phenomena, residents were not randomly sampled (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Initial interviews were conducted with people who had participated in the previous survey. A snowball method, where people were asked to suggest other people who might be willing to be interviewed, was used (Patton, 1990).

In this way, the chances of nding interviewees who would yield rich and informative interviews were increased. Some interviews were also opportunistic in that some individuals asked to be interviewed. Interviews were conducted with 18 men and 17 women, ranging in age from 18 to 70 years, including seven Tharu, in three communities. Tharu are the indigenous group of the terai and inner terai and pahadi, or hill people, migrated from the hills during the 1950s and 1960s after eradication of malaria in the terai. Tharu have traditionally been more reliant on the resources of the forest and on a wider variety of species than pahadi (M uller-B oker, 1991). The communities were chosen based on their distance from park headquarters and government forests in order to capture the range of relationships that people have with the protected area in terms of their access to natural resources and their relationship with park management (Fig. 1). The distance from park headquarters also correlates with the number of NGO projects in the community, with the closest community have the largest number. All of the communities had been visited during the preliminary survey. The rst community, Madhela, is located about one kilometer from park headquarters along the southern border of the park. Residents have legal access to degraded government forest. The second, Karmala, is located about ve kilometers from park headquarters at the southern edge of the park; residents here also have legal access to degraded government forest. Residents of Madhela and Karmala include both tharu and pahadi. The third community, Chepang, is on the eastern edge of RBNP; residents have easy legal access to healthy government forests on both the north and south sides of the village. Residents of Chepang are pahadi. Interviews were based on an interview guide, an outline of the set of issues to be explored with each respondent (Patton, 1990). The guide covered numerous topics, of which three are discussed in this paper. Topics included the individuals history in the area, their reasons for moving there if they were a migrant, and their feelings about the area as a place to live; their use and perceptions of RBNP and their perceptions of changes over time in their relationship with the park; their impressions of how others in their community felt about the park; their perceptions of park management, the NGOs working in the area, and tourists and researchers such as myself; their understanding of relationship between the government and the park; and their understanding of the purpose and goals of the NGO projects in the area. General questions were asked about each topic, followed by probing questions to clarify or gain more understanding. Interviews were transcribed and translated into English by the rst author with help from native Nepali speakers. Text was analyzed using a content analysis approach (Patton, 1990) and the program QSR NUD*IST (Non-numerical Unstructured Data Indexing Searching and Theorizing) 3.0.4. First, interviews were coded according to the interview topics described above. Additional coding was conducted to identify themes within the research objectives. For example, to fulll the rst objective of this study, to explore the beliefs that people have concerning Royal Bardia NP, analysis began with coding perceived attributes of the park. After coding attributes, statements that linked different attributes together or that talked about the same

36

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

attribute in both negative and positive ways were coded. Similar procedures were used to code the other research questions. Coding was cross-checked by a colleague familiar with coding procedures who had no direct experience with this research. 4. Results and discussion 4.1. Perceptions of RBNP Peoples perceptions of RBNP are diverse, complex, and often contradictory. Often, people are neither completely in favor of nor opposed to the park. For example, on one hand, wildlife eats residents crops and residents access to resources is restricted because of the park. On the other hand, the area provides resources (legally and illegally), environmental services, and aesthetic benets (Table 1). One resident said, The only problem is that [wildlife] eat elds here. Otherwise, the park is good. It is good to take care of the wildlife. Different types of animals are here, which we can see them. It is good. The park has done nothing to us and jungle is everywhere. We have rewood, we have everything. For bathing, there is the river. The park is not difcult for us, except that the rhinos are nearby and come to eat the elds. The inability to extract legally both enhances and diminishes the economic value of RBNP for residents. Although people resent aspects of management that limit their access to resources, they recognize that management does conserve the resources that might otherwise be consumed by them or others. People dislike not having free access to resources in the park, such as fuelwood and fodder, but they also know that if it were an open access area, people would be extracting a greater quantity of resources and people from greater distances away would be extracting. As one man said: Open forest would be nished in one day. Now it is closed. People steal, but, at the same time, they are afraid [to steal]. Although residents may dislike the cost of the park to themselves, they recognize the parks conservation value at the individual and local, as well as national and global, scales. A
Table 1 Positive and negative attributes of the forest and wildlife of RBNP Value Forest Economic Recreational Aesthetic Environmental Positive attributes Extraction Breezes/shade Walk To see Beauty Clean air Clean water Healthy No pollution Negative attributes No legal extraction No legal grazing Restricted entry

common saying in Nepal is Nepalko dhan hariyo ban, which means, Nepals wealth is green forest. Wildlife is appreciated not only for personal enjoyment, but also because it is the countrys wealth. As one resident explained, Tomorrows generation will not be able to see wildlife that we can see now. How many animals are already nished? Let us talk about rhinos. We know how rhinos look, we have seen them, but in our childrens time, how will they know how rhinos are? They will not know except from books. 4.2. Relationship with RBNP management and attitude toward government People appreciate that management protects the park, including resources and wildlife, and even wish that management did a better job: Even with the guards, the jungle is being degraded. People also feel that the military presence provides some security to residents and communities and they recognize that guards and park staff sometimes provide help to local residents, for example by using their vehicles to take a sick person to the hospital. However, people do not like being ned and punished for entering the park, although they may feel that reasonable punishment is justied. Punishments people described for illegally extracting include nes, imprisonment, beatings, and rape. Guards are more lenient with people they know or with whom they feel an afliation, such as ethnicity. As one Tharu woman explained: The tharu police consider the tharu. The pahadi try to snatch whatever we have, the tharu try to let us go. People they know they try to let go, otherwise they take them [to the guard station]. It is important to note that residents do not clearly distinguish between the game scouts and the military guards and some people believe that the park is the armys, referring to it as the forest of the barracks (Table 2). Local people know that corruption exists within park management. Residents resent that they are not even allowed to extract
Table 2 Positive and negative perceptions of RBNP management, the government, and NGOs Positive Management/guards Protects park Provides help/security to residents Government Conserves RBNP Patron of people NGOs Promote community development and empowerment Bring money into community Negative Not protecting well enough Reputation for corruption Fine, arrest, abuse residents Corrupt Self-interested Ineffectual Unevenly distributed benets within community Socio-economic disparity between project staff and communities Lack of coordination with local institutions Short-term solutions

Wildlife Economic Recreational Information Bequest To see Entertaining Educational For future generations

Crop damage Livestock depredation Fear

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

37

dead and fallen wood for household use while ofcials sell large amounts for personal gain (Ghimire, 1994). According to residents, the game scouts have been known to cut trees in the park to sell as lumber to wealthy people in other areas of Nepal and in India. One resident made the comment that: They taught us to steal. Despite this, people support the government and its creation of the park because there is an understanding of the benets of forest in Nepal: The government has tried a lot for the animals. There is benet for the government because Nepals wealth is green forest. However, people still have a traditional belief that the government should play the role of patron to its citizens. In the case of RBNP, residents feel that the government has an obligation to mitigate the negative effects of the park. As one man said about park-related problems, such as crop damage by wildlife: We should not run away, we should ask, we have to get promise from government. One woman explained that the government has a responsibility to care for both people and wildlife: The park is the governments, people cant kill wildlife. Animals and people are equal. The government must take care of wildlife, and it must also take care of us people. I love the animals. . .. However, there is damage to elds [from wildlife]. We should be far away so that we do not disturb the animals. The feeling that the government is the patron of the people arises out of the relationship that people have traditionally had with the monarchy, whose role is perceived as taking care of the people. In return, people feel they must support the government and its decisions. When people were asked how they felt about the park, some people responded that if the government thinks the park is good, so must they. For some people, the feeling that the government decisions must be respected is sincere in a positive, respectful way. For others, it arises out a feeling of powerlessness to help themselves and resentment at a reliance on the government that is viewed as corrupt. Massive foreign aid at the national level contrasted with a lack of facilities in the communities, such as electricity, roads, and health posts, has created a negative attitude toward the government. People consider the government corrupt, weak, self-interested, and ineffectual. As one resident said, Everyone watches his or her own stomachs. The leaders only look out for themselves; they dont look out for the villages. They believe that the government only listens to those who are wealthy and have power. As one man said, The government doesnt look after the poor, it has bad eyes. An individuals perceptions of the government can affect the expression of her/his perceptions toward RBNP. In areas where land has not been ofcially measured and registered by the government, people fear that their land could be taken away from them to increase the park size. Thus, in Chepang, one woman, when asked if she believed that wildlife needed some place to live, said: This happens. If we say animals need a place, we think the government will move us from here. This demonstrates that people may be cautious about emphasizing benets of the park if they perceive that those comments could be used to their disadvantage. Other people would like to be resettled

because they recognize the value of the park, at least for the government, but feel like it is only fair for the government to take care of them also. Some individuals perceive that those who were resettled from the area when the park was extended in 1989 received a good deal. Some want to be resettled out of anger and resentment at the government for not being a responsible patron. 4.3. Perceptions of non-governmental organizations As noted earlier, in a previous survey, people living adjacent to RBNP do not make a connection between the park and the benets that the associated projects have provided, such as a health post, lumber for schools and bridges, and community committees. The reasons for this disconnect between NGO activities and the park is due partly to the fact that people do not understand the relationship between the NGOs and conservation of the park, nor can people necessarily distinguish differences among the park authority, the NGOs, and the hotels, much less among the NGOs themselves. The number of different NGOs working around and in the park makes it difcult for people to differentiate between them. One woman commented: All [NGOs] are the same. Part of the confusion about the NGOs and hotels may be because they both get preferential treatment from park management. For example, both are allowed to cut thatch before local residents, and they are allowed to use wood from the park for their buildings. One hotel has a license from the government, which allows it to run a camp within the park. An additional problem in a developing country such as Nepal, where foreign aid has played such an important role, is that people have a feeling of entitlement. They know they are perceived as poor by other nations who give large amounts of funding, so they feel they deserve development activities. Peoples awareness of the role that foreign aid plays in their countrys development is illustrated by one residents response to a question about the role NGOs play in the community. He responded not with a general response about the type of projects or the benets, but with the exact amount of money that a project had given to make a nursery plantation. This sense of entitlement has grown out of Nepals long history of foreign aid. In the forestry sector alone, by 1987, 38 international agencies and organizations, compared to three Nepali groups, were conducting projects and research in Nepal (Tinker, 1994). Although the link between the park and projects is weak, residents who have participated in the community groups formed by the NGOs recognize that the groups have beneted the communities in meaningful ways. One wealthy and educated man explained that he learned from the NGO that communities need to be self-dependent, not relying on outside organizations or government to help them solve problems. Women active on committees feel that they are learning to work together and to be more independent through NGO projects (Table 2). In contrast, the perspectives of one resident and her husband reveal a number of ways that residents can view NGO activities negatively. They resented unevenly distributed benets within the community and the high socio-economic status of project workers. They felt more local people should be hired within the projects and hotels. They disliked that NGOs do not always

38

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

work cooperatively with already-existing institutions. They were referring to a health post that an NGO had built that was just down the road from a government health post. The NGO health post was relatively well-stocked, while the government health post was not. They doubted the usefulness of NGO projects, which they perceived as short-term solutions. They also felt that often the NGOs looked out for their own benet rst. For example, the couple said they chose tiles to roof their home because there was not enough thatch available from the park because hotels and NGOs are allowed to cut rst before local residents can enter. Despite these negative comments, this couple did not rule out that the NGOs might prove to be benecial in the future. 5. Discussion Residents hold a diversity of values toward RBNP that are both positive and negative. They appreciate that the area provides natural resources (legally and illegally), environmental services, and aesthetic benets. They appreciate these benets both for themselves and their communities, but they also appreciate that the PA benets the country. These perceptions can seem to be conicting. For example, residents simultaneously consider the illegality of extraction to be both a benet and a problem. While people resent not being able to extract the resources they wish, or in the case of thatch, to the extent that they wish, they do appreciate that extraction is limited and resources are conserved. In RBNP, peoples perceptions of the park are linked closely with their perceptions of park management and the military that guard the park. Other studies have also found peoples relationship with park management to be important (Holmes, 2003) and some studies have found that peoples attitudes toward management can be even more negative than their attitudes toward the protected areas (Ineld, 1988; Newmark et al., 1993). In a summary of factors inuencing attitude toward protected areas, a poor relationship with park staff was the only variable that was always associated with negative perceptions of protected areas in all six studies reviewed (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995). Our results highlight the complexity of the communitymanagement relationship and demonstrate that the role the guards play in protecting the park is not only a negative one. In fact, residents have conicted perceptions of park management and the military that guard it. For example, although they dislike it, many accept that punishments for illegal extraction are justied. However, not surprisingly, they resent that the park management, military, and hotels are allowed to extract resources from the park that they themselves are not. If residents perceive that other entities are gaining more extractive benets from the park than they are, it weakens peoples relationship with management and makes it difcult for people to understand and support conservation of the park. It is important that residents perceive park managements primary duty as protecting the park and not legally or illegally gaining benets themselves. This study also highlights that it is not only peoples perceptions of park management that affect their attitude, it is also their perceptions of the government. People can and do understand the reasons that the government has set aside strictly protected

areas and they understand the bigger picture that conservation plays in the protecting Nepals national heritage. However, this can be good or bad depending on how they perceive the government and whether they respect it or view it as corrupt. In the case of RBNP, peoples memories of the king and his support of protected areas is important to their positive perceptions of RBNP, while their perceptions of the current government, particularly local ofcials, as corrupt have a negative effect on their attitude toward RBNP. The fact that residents rarely discussed NGOs or their work as a benet of RBNP has disturbing implications for the idea that people will support conservation of protected areas if they gain tangible benets from it. In the case of RBNP, it is clear that park management and NGOs should be clearer about the purpose and goals of the projects. However, while it is recognized that conservation and development projects have generally done an inadequate job of linking conservation and development (Heinen and Mehta, 2000), one aspect that has not been discussed much is that often NGOs deliberately do not link them, at least in the initial stages of the project, as was the case with some projects in the area. Often NGOs are trying to build support for themselves by supporting development activities that are not directly linked to conservation of the park (Brandon and Wells, 1992). Their logic is that if they provide programs for residents that meet residents needs then residents will be more willing to work with NGOs on projects that meet the parks needs. However logical this may seem to NGOs, if residents are not aware of the NGOs full agenda, then NGO activities are unlikely to motivate residents to support conservation farther down the road. In the worse case scenario, residents may actually feel manipulated once the NGO agenda becomes clear. On the other hand, even if the links between conservation and development are made direct and explicit, the ramications of linking them should be carefully considered. While it may improve peoples attitudes toward RBNP if they considered project development activities to be benets of the park, the long-term effects of making this link need to be carefully considered. If peoples expectations of development benets are not fullled, their attitude toward the park may be negatively impacted. In Cross River National Park, Nigeria (Ite, 1996), Machalilla National Park, Ecuador (Fiallo and Jacobson, 1995), and Richtersveld National Park, South Africa (Boonzaier, 1996) residents perceptions of the park have been negatively impacted because they feel betrayed and cheated by promises of community development which have not materialized. Another aspect of the community-NGO relationship that is often overlooked is peoples relationships with and perceptions of the NGO staff. In the case of RBNP, inherent tensions exist in peoples relationships with NGOs because the relationship is shaped by the power structure inherent within it. NGO personnel come from outside, descend upon the community, and often take for granted that local people want them to come and want their help. These factors cause tensions between residents and NGOs, which NGO employees may underestimate because of peoples appreciation of the projects and NGO efforts to help the local communities.

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340

39

Ultimately, it is important that NGOs from the outset help build support for the park as an institution and its staff, or they may be undermining their own less explicit long term goal of making the park a strong conservation institution. NGO projects should be clearly integrated into park management goals. Management, NGOs, and residents should clearly understand how NGO projects, even if focused on community development, fulll conservation objectives. The case of RBNP highlights the need for good communication between management and residents. People should understand NGOs agendas and be made equal partners in terms of choosing and shaping projects. This study predates the creation of the Buffer Zone Management Regulations, which among other things, allowed for the spending of 30-50% of the funds earned by parks and reserves to be used for community development with mechanisms for communities to participate in deciding how the money gets spent. While the results of this study are important unto themselves in the larger context of people-park relationships, a similar study conducted now after buffer zone management implementation would be extremely interesting and useful. 6. Conclusion In RBNP, while people resent that they cannot freely extract from the park, they also recognize that protection of the park is good not only for conservation in general, but also because it serves to conserve the resources upon which they depend. Peoples perceptions of RBNP are strongly connected to their perceptions of other entities that they associate with RBNP, particularly park management, but also including the government more broadly. Finally, the role of community development projects, which are meant to improve the relationship between people and protected areas and ultimately help conserve the area more effectively, is not necessarily one that people easily recognize. These three issues explored in the context of RBNP have important implications for Parkpeople relationships more generally. First, the diverse, and possibly conicting, perceptions that people hold toward protected areas should be recognized and understood. Management should not only work to meet peoples extraction needs if possible, but also take advantage of and strengthen peoples understanding of the need to eliminate or mitigate extraction from protected areas as well as build on their understanding of the importance of conservation of the area. Conservation strategies that foster and integrate the diverse values that people hold will more accurately reect the reality and complexity of peoples lives and, therefore, promise the best hope of sustaining protected areas and communities over the long-term. Second, improving peoples attitudes toward management may be one of the most critical ways to improve the parkpeople relationship. Management must be perceived by local people as trying to protect the park while working to have good relationships with local people. No matter how much residents understand and support conservation, it will be difcult for them to support PA management and the PA itself if they feel man-

agement is gaining its own benets from the park at the expense of local communities. Third, NGO projects should be clearly integrated into park management goals. PA management and NGOs must be straightforward with communities about their own goals and objectives from the very beginning of projects. They need to communicate clearly to communities how projects, even if focused on community development, fulll conservation objectives. Additionally, NGOs should build support for the park as an institution and for park staff or they may be undermining their own less explicit long term goal of making a protected area a strong conservation institution. References
Abel, N., Blaikie, P., 1986. Elephants, people, parks and development: the case of the Luangwa Valley, Zambia. Environ. Manage. 10, 735751. Akama, J.S., Lant, C.L., Burnett, G.W., 1995. Conicting attitudes toward state wildlife conservation programs in Kenya. Soc. Nat. Resour. 8, 133144. Allendorf, T.D., 2006. Residents attitudes toward three protected areas in southwestern Nepal. Biodiversity and Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10531006-9092-z. Published online Oct. 27, 2006. Bauer, H., 2003. Local perceptions of Waza National Park, northern Cameroon. Environ. Conserv. 30, 175181. Berkes, F., 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conserv. Biol. 18, 621630. Boonzaier, E., 1996. Local responses to conservation in the Richtersveld National Park, South Africa. Biodivers. Conserv. 5, 307314. Brandon, K., Wells, M., 1992. Planning for people and parks: design dilemmas. World Dev. 20, 557570. Brosius, J.P., Russell, D., 2003. Conservation from above: an anthropological perspective on transboundary protected areas and ecoregional planning. J. Sustain. Forest. 17 (1/2), 3965. Brown, K., 1997. Plain tales from the grasslands: extraction, value and utilization of biomass in Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Biodivers. Conserv. 6, 5974. Brown, K., 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. Geogr. J. 168, 617. Daniels, R., Bassett, T.J., 2002. The spaces of conservation and development around Lake Nakuru National Park Kenya. Profess. Geogr. 54, 481490. Dearden, P., Chettamart, S., Emphandu, D., Tanakanjana, N., 1996. National parks and hills tribes in Northern Thailand: a case study of Doi Inthanon. Soc. Nat. Resour. 9, 125141. De Boer, W.F., Baquete, D.S., 1998. Natural resource use, crop damage and attitudes of rural people in the vicinity of the Maputo Elephant Reserve, Mozambique. Environ. Conserv. 25, 208218. Fiallo, E.A., Jacobson, S.K., 1995. Local communities and protected areas, Attitudes of rural residents towards conservation and Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Environ. Conserv. 22, 241249. Fortin, M., Gagnon, C., 1999. An assessment of social impacts of national parks on communities in Quebec, Canada. Environ. Conserv. 26, 200211. Furze, B., de Lacy, T., Birckhead, J., 1996. Culture, Conservation, and Biodiversity. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY. Gadd, M.E., 2005. Conservation outside of parks: attitudes of local people in Laikipia, Kenya. Environ. Conserv. 32, 5063. Ghimire, K.B., 1994. Parks and peoplelivelihood issues in national parks management in Thailand and Madagascar. Dev. Change 25, 195229. Gillingham, S., Lee, P.C., 1999. The impact of wildlife-related benets on the conservation attitudes of local people around the Selous Game Reserve, Tanzania. Environ. Conserv. 26, 218228. Heinen, J.T., 1993. Park people relations in Kosi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepala socio-economic analysis. Environ. Conserv. 20, 2534. Heinen, J.T., Mehta, J.N., 2000. Emerging issues in legal and procedural aspects of buffer zone management with case studies from Nepal. J. Environ. Dev. 9 (1), 4567.

40

T.D. Allendorf et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 82 (2007) 3340 Patton, M.Q., 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Picard, C.H., 2003. Post-apartheid perceptions of the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park, South Africa. Environ. Conserv. 30, 182191. Raval, S.R., 1994. Wheel of life - perceptions and concerns of the resident peoples for gir-national-park in India. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 305 320. Stre, D.V., 1993. People and Grasses: A Case Study from the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Agriculture University of Norway. Sah, J.P., Heinen, J.T., 2001. Wetland resource use and conservation attitudes among indigenous and migrant peoples in Ghodaghodi Lake area, Nepal. Environ. Conserv. 28, 345356. Sekhar, N.U., 1998. Crop and livestock depredation caused by wild animals in protected areas in the case of Sariska Tiger Reserve, Rajasthan, India. Environ. Conserv. 25, 160171. Sekhar, N.U., 2003. Local peoples attitudes towards conservation and wildlife tourism around Sariska Tiger Reserve, India. J. Environ. Manage. 69, 339347. Sharma, U.R., 1990. An overview of Parkpeople interactions in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Landsc. Urban Plann. 19, 133144. Sharma, U.R., Shaw, W.W., 1993. Role of Nepals Royal Chitwan National Park in meeting the grazing and fodder needs of local people. Environ. Conserv. 20, 139142. Slater, R., 2002. Between a rock and a hard place: contested livelihoods in Qwaqwa National Park, South Africa. Geogr. J. 168, 116129. Songorwa, A.N., 1999. Community-based wildlife management (CWM) in Tanzania: are the communities interested? World Dev. 27, 2061 2079. Straede, S., Helles, F., 2000. Parkpeople conict resolution in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: buying time a high cost? Environ. Conserv. 27, 368381. Studsrd, J.E., Wegge, P., 1995. Parkpeople relationships - the case of damage caused by park animals around the Royal Bardia National Park, Nepal. Environ. Conserv. 22, 133142. Tinker, I., 1994. Women and Community Forestry in Nepal: Expectations and Reality. Soc. Nat. Resour. 7, 367381. Upreti, B.N., 1994. Royal Bardia National Park. National Conservation Strategy Implementation Project, Kathmandu, Nepal. Wainwright, C., Wehrmeyer, W., 1998. Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia. World Dev. 26, 933944. Walpole, M.J., Goodwin, H.J., 2001. Local attitudes toward conservation and tourism around Komodo National Park, Indonesia. Environ. Conserv. 28, 160166. Weladji, R.B., Moe, S.R., Vedeld, P., 2003. Stakeholder attitudes toward wildlife policy and the Benoue Wildlife Conservation Area, North Cameroon. Environ. Conserv. 30, 334343. Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L., West, P.C., 2002. Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent protection paradigm in international biodiversity conservation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15, 1740. Woodroffe, R., Ginsberg, J.R., 1998. Edge effects and the extinction of populations inside protected areas. Science 280, 21262128. Zube, E.H., 1986. Local and Extra-Local Perceptions of National-Parks and Protected Areas. Landsc. Urban Plann. 13, 1117.

Hill, C.M., 1998. Conicting attitudes towards elephants around the Budongo Forest Reserve, Uganda. Environ. Conserv. 25, 244250. Holmes, C.M., 2003. The inuence of protected area outreach on conservation attitudes and resource use patterns: a case study from western Tanzania. Oryx 20, 305315. Hough, J.L., Sherpa, M.N., 1989. Bottom up vs. basic needsintegrating conservation and development in the Annapurna and Michiru Mountain Conservation Areas of Nepal and Malawi. Ambio 18, 434441. Ineld, M., 1988. Attitudes of a rural community towards conservation and a local conservation area in Natal, South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 45, 2146. Ineld, M., Namara, A., 2001. Community attitudes and behavior toward conservation: an assessment of a community conservation programme around Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda. Oryx 35, 4860. Ite, U.E., 1996. Community perceptions of the Cross River National Park, Nigeria. Environ. Conserv. 23, 351357. Jim, C.Y., Xu, S.S.W., 2002. Stied stakeholders and subdued participation: interpreting local responses toward Shimentai Nature Reserve in South China. Environ. Manage. 30, 327341. Kharel, F.R., 1997. Agricultural crop and livestock depredation by wildlife in Langtang National Park, Nepal. Mount. Res. Dev. 17, 127134. Maikhuri, R.K., Nautiyal, S., Rao, K.S., Chandrasekhar, K., Gavali, R., Saxena, K.G., 2000. Analysis and resolution of protected areapeople conicts in Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve, India. Environ. Conserv. 27, 4353. McNeely, J.A., Miller, K.R. (Eds.), 1984. National Parks, Conservation, and Development: The Role of Protected Areas in Sustaining Society. Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC. Mehta, J.N., Heinen, J.T., 2001. Does community-based conservation shape favorable attitudes among locals? An empirical study from Nepal. Environ. Manage. 28, 165177. Mehta, J.N., Kellert, S.R., 1998. Local attitudes toward community-based conservation policy and programmes in Nepal: a case study in the Makalu-Barun Conservation Area. Environ. Conserv. 25, 320333. Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Mkanda, F.X., Munthali, S.M., 1994. Public attitudes and needs around Kasungu National Park, Malawi. Biodivers. Conserv. 3, 2944. Mukherjee, A., Borad, C.K., 2004. Integrated approach towards conservation of Gir National Park: the last refuge of Asiatic Lions, India. Biodivers. Conserv. 13, 21652182. M uller-B oker, U., 1991. Knowledge and evaluation of the environment in traditional societies in Nepal. Mount. Res. Dev. 11, 101114. Nepal, S.J., Weber, K.E., 1995. The quandary of local parkpeople relations in Nepals royal Chitwan National Park. Environ. Manage. 19, 853866. Newmark, W.D., 1996. Insularization of Tanzanian parks and the local extinction of large mammals. Conserv. Biol. 10, 15491556. Newmark, W.D., Leonard, N.L., Sariko, H.I., Gamassa, D.G.M., 1993. Conservation Attitudes of Local People Living Adjacent to 5 Protected Areas in Tanzania. Biol. Conserv. 63, 177183. Oli, M.K., Taylor, I.R., Rogers, M.E., 1994. Snow leopard Panthera uncia predation of livestock: an assessment of local perceptions in the Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal. Biol. Conserv. 68, 6368. Parry, D., Campbell, B., 1992. Attitudes of rural communities to animal wildlife and its utilization in Chobe Enclave and Mababe Depression, Botswana. Environ. Conserv. 19, 245252.