The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal
Open accessAbstract
In resource dependent rural areas of developing countries, common property resource management has been considered as one of the most viable options for combining poverty reduction, enhancement of local level economic development and biodiversity conservation. The past decade has witnessed an increasing emphasis on community-based forest management, with transference of forest management responsibility into the hands of local communities. However, although community forestry (CF) has succeeded in halting resource degradation and conservation of biodiversity, the equity aspect of CF not been fully examined. Nepal is a good location for a case study to examine this question, as community forest programs have been in place longer than in many other countries. This study analyzes the relationship between key household characteristics and common property resources used in order to assess whether poorer households are able to gain greater access to community forests as a result of institutional change. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses suggest that forest product collection from community forests is dependent on various socio-economic variables. In general it appears that land and livestock holdings, caste, education of family members and household economic status exert a strong influence on appropriating benefits from the commons. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that, at least for some key products, poorer households are currently facing more restricted access to community forests than ‘less poor’ or relatively better off households.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges.
Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.284.5412.278 · Cited by 2,798
Cited by
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2014) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,147
Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai
Agrawal, A., & Gupta, K. (2005) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.04.009 · Cited by 428
Economic dependence on forest resources: A case from Dendi District, Ethiopia
Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E., & Vedeld, P. (2007) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2006.08.001 · Cited by 404
Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi
Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P., & Sjaastad, E. (2009) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.08.018 · Cited by 356
Yemiru, T., Roos, A., Campbell, B. M., & Bohlin, F. (2010) · International Forestry Review · doi:10.1505/ifor.12.1.66 · Cited by 168
Metadata
- Authors
- Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C.
- Venue
- Ecological Economics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2004-02
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 245-257
- ISSN
- 0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1974149450
- Cited by
- 594
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 13.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.008
- The paper
- Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S., & Lovett, J. C. (2004). Household characteristics and forest dependency: evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.008
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.