Effectiveness of protected area revenue-sharing program: Lessons from the key informants of Nepal's buffer zone program

• Published in: Journal of environmental management Vol. 367; p. 121980
• Main Authors: Dixit, Sweta, Poudyal, Neelam C., Silwal, Thakur, Joshi, Omkar, Bhandari, Ananta R., Pant, Ganesh, Hodges, Donald G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01-09-2024
• Subjects: Benefit sharing; Buffer zone; Community; Park revenue; Park-people relation; Park-people relation; Buffer zone; Park revenue; Community; Benefit sharing
• ISSN: 0301-4797; 1095-8630; 1095-8630
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121980

Finding appropriate mechanism of sharing protected area (PA) benefit with local communities is a critical policy question in biodiversity conservation. The Buffer Zone (BZ) program, practiced in several countries, involves placing partial restrictions on land use in peripherical areas while sharing a portion of PA revenue with the communities therein. However, the effectiveness of this program in promoting conservation and development is unknown. Evidence from key informant interviews of 41 individuals representing a diverse group of stakeholders associated with Nepal's 26-year-old BZ program, imply that the institutional platform the BZ program provides to stakeholders, rather than the shared revenue itself, creates bigger impacts in integrated conservation and development. Findings also suggest that effectiveness of such programs may be further enhanced by accommodating some autonomy for local BZ institutions to meet their local needs; shifting the focus from development to conservation education, wildlife damage mitigation, and relief to wildlife victims; and leveraging BZ funds with other sources to create a bigger impact.
•Securing local support for protected area needs sharing benefits with communities.•Sharing park revenue through Bufferzone program promotes conservation and development.•BZ program can be more effective with autonomy for BZ institutions to meet their local needs.•Shared revenue is better spent on wildlife-human conflict mitigation than development.•Shared revenue should be leveraged to obtain external funds and create bigger impacts.