Forests and Management: A Case Study in Nepal Using Remote Sensing and GIS

  • Harini Nagendra
  • Charles M. Schweik


The past decades have witnessed increasing awareness of forest degradation, with a concurrent rising interest in alternative methods of forest management. Among developing countries, Nepal has proved an enthusiastic leader in experimenting with participatory systems of forest governance (Agrawal et al. 1999). A careful look at the measures that Nepal has put into place, and analysis of their successes and limitations, will help enhance our understanding and ultimately facilitate implementation of effective forest policy.


Normalize Difference Vegetation Index Forest Condition Community Forestry Normalize Difference Vegetation Index Image Forest Governance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agrawal, A., C. Britt, and K. Kanel. 1999. Decentralization in Nepal: A Comparative Analysis. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brown, K. 1998. The Political Ecology of Biodiversity, Conservation and Development in Nepal’s Terai: Confused Meanings, Means and Ends. Ecological Economics 24: 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakraborty, R. N. 2001. Stability and Outcomes of Common Property Institutions in Forestry: Evidence from the Terai Region of Nepal. Ecological Economics 34: 1–353.Google Scholar
  4. Nagendra, H. and M. Gadgil 1999. Biodiversity Assessment at Multiple Scales: Linking Remotely Sensed Data with Field Information. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 96: 9154–9158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Nagendra, H. 2001. Using Remote Sensing to Assess Biodiversity. International Journal of Remote Sensing 22: 2377–2400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nagendra, H. 2003. Tenure and Forest Conditions: Community Forestry in the Nepal Terai. Environmental Conservation, in press.Google Scholar
  7. Ostrom, E. 1998. The International Forestry Resources and Institutions Program: A Methodology for Relating Human Incentives and Actions on Forest Cover and Biodiversity. In F. Dallmeier and J. A. Comisker, eds. Forest Biodiversity in North, Central and South America, and the Caribbean: Research and Monitoring, Man and the Biosphere Series (Vol. 1: 1–28). Paris: UNESCO; New York: Parthenon.Google Scholar
  8. Schweik, C. M., K. Adhikari, and K. N. Pandit. 1997. Land-Cover Change and Forest Institutions: A Comparison of Two Sub-Basins in the Southern Siwalik Hills of Nepal. Mountain Research and Development 17: 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Schweik, C., H. Nagendra, and D. R. Sinha. 2003. Using Satellites to Search for Forest Management Innovations in Nepal. Ambio, in press.Google Scholar
  10. Strode, S. and F. Helles. 2000. Park-People Conflict in Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal: Buying Time at High Cost? Environmental Conservation 27: 368–381.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harini Nagendra
    • 1
  • Charles M. Schweik
    • 2
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations