The Impact of Transition From Community Forestry to Conservation Area on Women’s Participation in Forest Governance: A Case Study of Gaurishankar Conservation Area,Nepal

Abstract

Nepal’s Community Forestry (CF) model, introduced in the 1970s, fostered decentralized forest governance through Community Forest User Groups, promoting local decision-making, and resource management, and fostering local participation, including that of women. However, concerns over biodiversity conservation, conflicting land-use priorities, and the need for alignment with global conservation policies led to the establishment of Conservation Areas (CAs) as an alternative governance model in certain locations. This study examines the impact of the transition from a CF to a CA governance model on women’s participation in forest governance in the Gaurishankar region of Nepal. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, including indepth interviews (32), key informant interviews (10), and focus group discussions (21), field observations, and household surveys (375). Findings indicate that the shift from CF to CA has significantly reduced women’s roles, access to decision-making processes, and opportunities for resource management. The emphasis on professional expertise rather than local knowledge, within the CA model, has undermined governance structures that previously enabled the application of women’s ecological knowledge and equitable participation, posing challenges for sustainable and inclusive conservation outcomes.

Plain Language Summary

The Impact of Transition From Community Forestry to Conservation Area on Women’s Participation in Forest Governance: A Case Study of Gaurishankar Conservation Area, Nepal

Nepal introduced Community Forestry in the 1970s to give local communities, including women, more control over how forests were managed. This approach encouraged local decision-making and participation through Community Forest User Groups. However, in some areas, the government replaced this system with Conservation Areas to better protect biodiversity and align with international conservation efforts. This study examines the impact of this transformation on women’s participation in forest management in the Gaurishankar region of Nepal. The region was previously governed by local communities but is currently administered by a centralized, expert-driven paradigm under the Gaurishankar Conservation Area. Researchers employed interviews, focus group discussions, surveys, and field visits to assess the impact on women’s participation.

The findings indicate that women now possess diminished opportunities for participation in forest governance. The new system prioritizes technical expertise over local knowledge, resulting in diminished roles for women in decision-making and resource management. This shift may harm efforts to make forest conservation both sustainable and inclusive.

Keywords

community forestry conservation area forest governance mixed-methods approach women’s participation transition

Introduction

Conservation governance in Nepal has evolved in response to ecological, economic, and political priorities. The transition from Community Forestry (CF) to Conservation Area (CA) governance in areas of high conservation significance illustrates a key step in this evolution. The establishment of the Gaurishankar Conservation Area (GCA) in 2010, for example, integrated 76 community forests covering approximately 20,477 hectares under CA management (National Trust for Nature Conservation [NTNC], 2020). Community Forests, legally recognized in the Forest Act of 1993 as national forests managed collectively by local user groups for development, conservation, and utilization, were initially introduced in the early 1970s with government and international support. As a decentralized governance model, CF granted local communities rights to manage resources, strengthened women’s leadership through mandated representation, and supported livelihoods by facilitating forest-based enterprises (Cadman et al., 2023; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], 1993; Gautam et al., 2024; Government of Nepal [GoN], 1993; Murer & Piccoli, 2022; Ojha et al., 2022; Thani et al., 2019). However, CF was considered to lack effectiveness in addressing broader ecological priorities such as biodiversity conservation, landscape connectivity and climate resilience. In response, the CA model was introduced to meet broader conservation objectives and has achieved measurable gains in biodiversity protection and ecological restoration (Bajracharya et al., 2011).

Despite ecological motivations, hierarchical, expert-driven governance structures evident under the CA model, as observed in conservation areas including Annapurna and Manaslu have often constrained women’s participation, limited socio-economic benefits, and marginalized Indigenous and local knowledge systems (Bajracharya et al., 2011; Dahal et al., 2014; de Castro-Pardo & Azevedo, 2021; Maharjan et al., 2020). Although ecologically motivated, these governance shifts have had significant social and political implications. Evidence from Nepal and beyond shows that transitions from community-based to conservation-oriented systems can reduce women’s decision-making power, confine them to symbolic representation, and erode resource rights, particularly among poorer households (Baral, 2018; Goldman, 2011; Haller et al., 2008; Laudari et al., 2024; S. B. Mariki, 2013; Tsikata, 2003). Comparative studies in Tanzania and Peru similarly demonstrate that expert-driven models often privilege technical knowledge over local practices, weakening women’s influence and authority (Goldman, 2011; Haller et al., 2008; S. B. Mariki, 2013; Tsikata, 2003).

To analyze these dynamics, this study applies Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) alongside Self-Organization Theory (SOT). FPE provides a lens for investigating how gender, caste, ethnicity, and class shape access to resources, authority in governance, and recognition of knowledge (Elmhirst, 2015; Nightingale, 2006; Robbins, 2019; Rocheleau et al., 1996). FPE reveals the hidden gendered power dynamics, as evidenced by women’s constrained participation in forestry due to divisions of labor, social capital disparities, and exclusion from decision-making (Nightingale, 2006; Sun et al., 2011; Ty et al., 2023). Globally, centralized conservation programs have marginalized women by limiting their decision-making, reducing economic benefits, and weakening social networks (Arya & Shukla, 2025; James et al., 2021). Recurrent patterns of symbolic participation and epistemic injustice, in which women’s and local knowledge are undervalued, are evident across contexts such as Namibia and Nepal (Gosselin & Gauquelin, 2025; Lendelvo et al., 2012; Staddon, 2021).

SOT complements FPE by examining how decentralized institutions enable collective action and adaptive governance (Ostrom, 2009). CF exemplified self-organization, allowing forest user groups, including women and marginalized communities to formulate rules, mobilize labor, and reinvest benefits locally (Gautam et al., 2024). These processes facilitated women’s agency in resource governance, participation in capacity-building initiatives, and leadership development. In contrast, CA centralization constrained local autonomy, weakened community-driven governance, and limited women’s influence in conservation (Laudari et al., 2024).

By combining FPE and SOT, this study situates the four analytical domains: resource governance, capacity building and economic opportunities, political participation, and women’s networks and agency within broader debates on conservation, decentralization, and gender justice. These domains were identified inductively through thematic analysis of interviews, focus group discussions, participant observations, and survey data. Their interpretation draws on FPE and SOT to elucidate the social and institutional mechanisms underlying women’s declining participation under CA governance.

Methods

Study Area

The Gaurishankar Conservation Area (GCA) covers an area of 2,179 km² across the Dolakha, Ramechhap, and Sindhupalchok districts of Nepal (see Figure 1). It provides biological connectivity between Sagarmatha and Langtang National Parks and shares a border with the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China. GCA comprises 44.5% forest coverage, 8.8% agricultural land, 8.6% grassland, and 2.77% glaciers regions, with some other minor land uses. The GCA is home to diverse ethnic communities (NTNC, 2020).

Figure 1.

Location of Gaurishankar Conservation Area (GCA), defined by the green outline and Nepal’s border with China. Adapted from, NTNC (2020).

Research Design

A mixed-methods design, with qualitative inquiry as the primary focus, examined how the transition from CF to CA governance affected women’s participation in forest governance in Gaurishankar. Guided primarily by FPE, the qualitative approach explored how intersecting social identities influence women’s access to authority, decision-making, and recognition of ecological knowledge. SOT complemented this framework by highlighting the role of decentralized institutions in enabling collective action and adaptive governance under CF and elucidating how centralization under CA constrained these dynamics.

The study emphasized contextual depth and interpretative analysis, focusing on women’s lived experiences in the four domains: resource governance, capacity building and economic opportunities, political participation, and women’s networks and agency. Complementary household surveys provided descriptive and statistical insights on participation trends, while triangulation across interviews, focus groups, participant observation, and document review ensured methodological rigor.

Data Collection Methods

Data collection was conducted in multiple stages between 2022 and 2024, combining qualitative and quantitative techniques to capture both the structural and experiential dimensions of governance transitions. An initial reconnaissance survey identified research sites, refined protocols, and engaged key stakeholders, including the Department of National Parks and Conservation, the Federation of the Community Forestry Users Nepal, the National Trust for Nature Conservation, and the Gaurishankar Conservation Area Project. This stage ensured contextual relevance and feasibility of the study design.

Ten key informant interviews were conducted with purposively selected informants (eight men, two women), including Conservation Area officials and former female committee members of Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs), to capture institutional perspectives on governance shifts and provisions for women’s inclusion. Following the governance transition from CF to CA, CFUGs were replaced by Conservation Forest Management Sub-Committees (CFMSCs), local bodies responsible for overseeing forest management within the GCA (NTNC, 2020). Interviews were primarily face-to-face, with some conducted by phone due to Covid-19 travel restrictions. Fieldwork in the northern Dolakha District was affected by local tensions, including hydropower disputes and conflicts between communities and GCA management, resulting in hesitancy among local people to discuss sensitive topics like governance transitions and women’s participation. Trust building, facilitated by the CFMSC Chairperson who was also a spouse of one of the key informants, helped secure participation in the study. The research team maintained neutrality and encouraged open dialogue, though challenges remained in engaging women participants in conversations around governance transitions.

Altogether, 32 in-depth interviews (22 females, 10 males) were conducted using purposive and snowball sampling across 11 Conservation Forest Management Sub- committees in Dolakha, Ramechhap, and Sindhupalchok districts. Participants included men, women, and members of the local Indigenous community, primarily over the age of 35, to capture diverse lived experiences and structural barriers affecting women’s participation. Interviews focused on activities, decision-making roles, and perceptions of governance changes, enabling analysis across the four domains described in the findings.

A total of 21 focus group discussions (8 female-only, 2 male-only, and 11 mixed groups) were conducted to gather collective perspectives on governance shifts, sociocultural norms, and the barriers and opportunities for women’s participation. Participants included community members and conservation area staff, with group composition designed to capture gender specific as well as mixed viewpoints.

The household surveys comprised 375 purposively selected women from Conservation Forest Management Sub-committee member lists: 280 from Dolakha, 52 from Ramechhap, 43 from Sindhupalchok (see Figure 1). Selection initially prioritized women in executive roles within CFMSCs or those who had previously held equivalent positions in CFUGs. In households without such members, female general members were surveyed. The survey aimed to map patterns and trends in women’s participation, with a focus on current CFMSC members who had formerly served in comparable CFUG roles. While the women-focused sampling aligns with the study’s central aim to examine gender-specific participation and constraints from an FPE perspective, it may introduce sampling bias by excluding men, youth, or other community groups. This limitation is explicitly acknowledged. To address potential bias, survey data were triangulated with responses from male and female key informant interviewees, mixed-gender focus group discussions, observations of committee meetings and informal community events, and secondary documents, collectively providing a comprehensive understanding of governance dynamics.

Participant observation during planning meetings and informal community interactions provided contextual insights into institutional processes, social negotiation, and the dynamics of women’s participation. Secondary data included laws (e.g., Forest Act, 1993; Government of Nepal, 1973), policies, management plans, institutional reports, and meeting minutes. These sources were used to verify and contextualize primary data, analyze policy frameworks, and track institutional changes.

The first author’s 9 years of experience in the GCA, particularly regarding gender and social inclusion, enriched contextual understanding but posed potential bias risks. This was addressed through reflexivity, maintaining a neutral academic stance, securing ethical approvals, and collaborating with female local researchers who facilitated trust and encouraged open and straightforward dialogue. Moreover, informal community interactions, including homestays, complemented structured interviews, and focus group discussion, enabled the researcher to document narratives beyond structured interviews, revealing sensitive subjects such as dissatisfaction with centralized authority and reduced decision-making roles for women. This integration of formal and informal methods allowed for a nuanced understanding of governance practices and their implications for women’s participation. All interviews and focus group discussions were conducted in Nepali and translated into English for analysis.

Methodological Limitations

The household survey focused exclusively on women respondents, although men were sometimes present in households during data collection, reflecting typical rural Nepali village settings. The exclusive focus on women in the household survey constrains generalizability of findings to broader community dynamics, including men and other social groups. This limitation was addressed through triangulation including key informant interviews with men, mixed-gender focus group discussions, participant observation, and document analysis. Additionally, mobility constraints and sensitivities around governance-related topics limited participation from some women in remote or marginalized groups. Discussions of sensitive subjects may have made some participants hold back or give cautious responses, particularly in formal settings dominated by male elites. These limitations were addressed through building community trust, engaging local liaisons, ensuring confidentiality, and practicing reflexivity regarding researcher positionality.

Data Analysis

Qualitative data were open-coded to identify recurrent patterns, producing four interlinked domains. FPE clarified how gender, caste, and ethnicity mediated exclusions; SOT highlighted how decentralization, enabling self-organization under CF, was disrupted under CA. Coding was conducted in Microsoft Word, with both narrative and content analyses capturing lived experiences, institutional changes, and governance practices. Household survey data (N = 375) were analyzed using descriptive statistics to capture trends in women’s participation across conservation, consultations, and capacity-building domains. Given that many activities recorded zero participation under CA, chi-square tests were conducted to the two domains with non-zero values: conservation campaigns and governance consultations. Both were found to be statistically significant, confirming that decline was not due to random variation A concurrent triangulation approach integrated qualitative and quantitative findings through joint displays (see Table 1) and iterative cross-referencing, with secondary documents validating and situating results with broader governance changes.

Table 1.

Data Sources and Analytical Purposes.

Data type	Source	Purpose
Key informant interviews (KIIs)	Conservation Area officials; former female committee members of Community Forest User Groups (CFUGs)	Capture institutional perspectives on governance shifts and provisions for women’s inclusion
In-depth interviews (IDIs)	Members of Conservation Forest Management Sub-committees (CFMSCs), including men, women, and Indigenous participants	Explore lived experiences, participation patterns, and barriers
Focus group discussions (FGDs)	Female-only, male-only, and mixed groups; community members; Conservation Area staff	Gather collective views on governance transition and sociocultural constraints
Household survey	Women in executive and general user members within CFMSCs, including those who previously held equivalent positions in CFUGs	Identify patterns and trends in women’s participation
Participant observation	Planning meetings; community events	Provide contextual insights on governance and participation
Secondary documents	Government policies, legal documents, management plans, reports, meeting minutes	Analyze policies and track institutional changes

Methodological Rigor and Ethical Conduct

Methodological integrity was ensured through data triangulation, iterative coding, and alignment of methods with research aims. Quantitative reliability was supported by pretesting survey instruments and stratified purposive sampling. Ethical approvals were obtained from relevant institutional review committee and government authorities, with informed consent, confidentiality, voluntary participation, and sensitivity to gender and local political contexts maintained throughout. Reflexive practices throughout data collection and collaboration with female local researchers minimized bias and upheld ethical standards. All the participants in the study were adults.

Governance Transition and Women’s Participation in Community Forestry and Conservation Area

The study highlights the governance shift from CF to CA management in the Gaurishankar region and its implications for women’s participation, agency, and empowerment. Policy analysis and key informant interviews reveal structural changes in governance that influenced women’s roles in forest governance.

CF established under the Forest Act of 1993 and the Forest Regulation of 1995, institutionalized autonomous CFUGs with formal management authority (GoN, 1993, 1995). Subsequent policy reforms, including the Community Forestry Guidelines (2009) and Forest Regulation (2022), mandated gender quotas requiring 50% female representation on executive committees and allocated dedicated budgets to support women and marginalized groups (GoN, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation [MoFSC], 2009, 2022). These provisions institutionalized substantive women’s participation and decision-making within CF governance structures. By contrast, the CA models, established under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1973, operate through hierarchical Conservation Area Management Committees and sub-committees, with governance largely centralized under government-appointed authorities (GoN, 1996, 1999). Women’s participation is primarily limited to nominated positions with minimal decision-making authority, reflecting a shift from CF’s decentralized, participatory governance to a centralized management approach (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Governance transitions in Gaurishankar Conservation Area.

While CF governance enabled large-scale biodiversity stewardship, it was limited in addressing broader ecological challenges, particularly landscape connectivity and climate adaptation. Accelerating climate threats, including glacial melt and associated ecosystem changes in the Himalayas, highlighted these limitations and contributed to the adoption of the CA model. The transition was formalized through Nepal’s 2009 Everest Declaration, which committed the nation to expanding protected areas to 25% of its territory and established the GCA in 2010 (Conservation area officials, KII, 2022). Although the CA model enhanced ecological management and conservation outcomes, key informants noted that it constrained women’s participation, agency, and access to decision-making processes. Importantly, these social consequences were often acknowledged casually by informants, suggesting that while recognized, women’s reduced participation was not prioritized in institutional agendas (Table 2).

Table 2.

Legal and Institutional Differences in Governance and Women’s Roles: CF and CA Models in Nepal.

Component	Community forestry (CF)	Conservation area (CA)
Legal framework	Forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995)	National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973)
Women’s representation	50% elected female representation on executive committees	Nominated female seats without mandated decision-making power
Resource management	Participatory allocation of forest products	Centralized management of biodiversity and tourism
Capacity building and economic opportunities	Leadership training: 35% of pro-poor funds allocated to women, including marginalized groups	No formal recognition for leadership training and dedicated funding for women

Source. GoN (1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2009, 2014, 2022).

Note. GoN = Government of Nepal.

Declining Women’s Participation in Conservation Area Governance

Following the transition from CF to CA governance, women’s participation in forest governance declined across four empirically derived domains: resource governance, capacity building and economic opportunities, political participation, and women’s networks and agency (see Table AI). These domains reflect recurring areas of change across qualitative and quantitative data and are interpreted through FPE and SOT, highlighting gendered and institutional mechanisms underlying diminished participation.

Table 3.

Women’s Participation in Forest Governance Under CF and CA (N = 375).

Domain	Activities	Participation under CF (%)	Participation under CA (%)
Conservation activities	Nursery establishment	29.3	0
	Tree plantation	7.7	0
	Forest improvement	31.7	0
	Conservation campaigns (awareness, clean-up drives, school programs)	38.1	3.5
Consultations	Forest governance consultations	68.3	40
Capacity building	Women’s empowerment training	67.3	0
	Adult education training	40.3	0
	Leadership training	16.7	0

Source. Household Survey (2022).

Note. Based on a household survey (N = 375). All respondents were women. Percentages show the number of respondents reporting participation in each activity.

Chi-square analyses confirmed that the decline in participation from CF and CA was statistically significant for both conservation campaigns (χ¹ = 144.07, p < .001) and governance consultations (χ¹ = 60.16, p < .001).

Resource Governance: Decentralization to Centralization

Under CF, women’s participation was both practical and decision-oriented, embedded in everyday forest management practices that fostered ecological stewardship. Quantitative data indicate that women participated in nursery establishment (29.3%), tree plantation (7.7%), and forest improvement (31.7%) under CF, whereas participation in these activities under CA governance was negligible. Participation in conservation campaigns declined sharply, from 38.1% under CF to 3.5% under CA, while governance consultations participation decreased from 68.3% under CF to 40.0% under CA. These forums had previously provided tangible platforms for women to influence decision-making but became less accessible and inclusive under CA structures. As one executive committee member recalled:

The CFUGs gave us space to establish and manage nurseries, and we were invited to meetings where the chairperson often sought our opinions before making decisions. (Female-only FGD, 2022)

Women’s participation in practical tasks such as forest patrolling, grazing, monitoring, and disease identification reinforced their confidence and validated their knowledge of local ecosystems (Female-only FGD, 2022). Importantly, CF governance recognized the value of traditional ecological knowledges held by women from ethnic minority groups particularly in identifying plants, using medicinal resources, and practicing sustainable harvesting. As one Indigenous woman respondent emphasized:

Our ancestral knowledge of plant identification and medicinal uses ensured sustainable harvesting and allowed us to pass down practices inherited from our mothers and grandmothers (IDI, 2022).

In contrast, under CA governance, management priorities shifted toward agency-led afforestation and ecological restoration in semi-intensive use zones, often linked to hydropower development and tourism projects. Women, particularly from marginalized caste and ethnic groups, were engaged primarily in labor-intensive, low-paid tasks, while more men took on managerial roles in infrastructure and restoration projects, gaining more access to remuneration and connections with external agencies. Formerly women-led activities, such as nursery management, were directed by the CA authority in coordination with external stakeholders (Female, general user members, mixed-group FGD, 2022). Women’s leadership in conservation campaigns declined sharply under CA governance. Once actively involved in planning and implementing initiatives such as land restoration, environmental education, and community clean-ups, women were sidelined as expert-led programming replaced participatory approaches. This transition eroded their sense of ownership and curtailed their influence over governance processes. As one female chairperson reflected:

We are rarely asked to lead conservation campaigns now. Earlier, we used to plan activities, but now experts and officials decide for us which campaigns to do. (IDI, 2022)

Governance consultations under CA model were increasingly formal, centralized, and often held in formal offices dominated by male elites, prominent community leaders and professional experts. Women described these forums as unwelcoming. As one committee member noted:

Most meetings are held in conservation area offices in formal settings, making it difficult for women to speak up in a room full of male experts, including officials, rangers, and management committee representatives. (Female-only FGD, 2022)

The reliance on technical language and professional discourse further distanced discussions from local priorities, limiting participation of marginalized women (IDIs 2022).

Additionally, the CA’s land-use zoning regulations, including special management, wilderness, and seasonal grazing areas, weakened the communal governance practices central to CF. Ethnic women in group discussions observed that the strict enforcement of CA rules conflicted with communal beliefs and the traditional forest management practices. These institutional shifts sidelined Indigenous women’s experiential knowledge, curtailed their involvement in decision-making, and intensified overlapping exclusion along gender, caste, and ethnicity.

Taken together, the quantitative and qualitative evidence demonstrates that women’s declining participation is structurally embedded. Situated within theory, FPE highlights how centralization reshaped gendered power relations, while SOT shows how dismantling decentralized CF structures undermined women’s capacity to co-govern resources.

Capacity Building and Economic Opportunities: Empowerment to Marginalization

Under CF, women’s empowerment was actively promoted through structured training programs, leadership development, and market-oriented forest initiatives. Approximately 67.3% of women participated in women’s empowerment training, 40.3% in adult education, and 16.7% in leadership training. These opportunities enhanced women’s social capital and strengthened their confidence in community decision-making. As one female community member reflected:

Adult education opened my eyes to the larger picture. I realized that forest management was not just about growing trees; it was about our rights, our community’s future, and even our role as women. (IDI, 2022)

These initiatives connected women’s knowledge and labor to economic outcomes. Women participated in the sale of firewood, medicinal plants, and timber, which contributed to household income and financial independence (Female, committee member and general user members, Female-only FGD, 2022). Forest-based economic activities, although modest, provided consistent income essential for household subsistence. CF’s revolving funds, of which approximately 35% were allocated to women’s livelihood initiatives, supported micro-enterprises development and enhanced the economic resilience of marginalized women (Female committee member, Female-only FGD, 2022; Male, KII, 2022).

Following the transition to CA governance, these empowerment structures eroded. Women-specific training programs were discontinued, and tourism became the primary revenue source. Economic opportunities were unevenly distributed, and women were largely confined to low-paid, informal labor such as cleaning and cooking, while men accessed higher-paying roles as guides, porters, and lodge operators (Female-only FGD, 2022). For many men, CA governance also created new economic opportunities, particularly in jobs and business linked to tourism, short-term conservation work, and liaison roles with external agencies, that had been limited and less formalized under CF.

Revenue centralization within CA further reduced women’s access to resources. The income from entry fees was retained primarily by the GCA management authority, with limited reinvestment in community development and no dedicated financial support for women-led initiatives (Female treasurer, IDI; community leader, mixed-group FGD, 2022). The discontinuation of revolving funds further constrained women’s economic autonomy, limiting their ability to invest in income-generating activities.

Respondents repeatedly emphasized the absence of systematic capacity-building initiatives tailored to women under CA governance. Suggested priorities included orientation on CA policies, tourism-based skills training, small business management, adult education, and leadership development. As Indigenous participants from Surel village expressed:

We would appreciate training in areas where we can generate income by upgrading homestays business; however, our needs have not been systematically assessed. (Indigenous woman, mixed-group FGD, 2022)

A female executive member similarly noted:

We lacked clarity on management changes and explicit provisions for women’s participation, roles and responsibilities including socio-economic benefits for Indigenous women within CA. (IDI, 2022)

Taken together, this dimension shows how shifts in governance restructured access to capacity-building and economic opportunities. Viewed through FPE, the findings highlight restructuring of power relations, while SOT highlights how CF’s decentralized mechanisms embedded women’s empowerment, which was later dismantled under CA governance.

Political Participation: Quotas to Tokenism

Under CF, gender quotas institutionalized women’s political participation by mandating at least 50% female representation in governance bodies and reserving leadership roles such as Chairperson or Treasurer for women. These provisions enabled women to participate in decision-making processes and fund management (Committee members, IDI, 2022). Women actively contributed to resource allocation, forest protection strategies, and regeneration planning. Reflecting on this period, a former female Community Forest User Group Chairperson recalled,

Regular consultations explicitly sought women’s voices, especially regarding resource access and management priorities. (IDI, 2022)

Over time, however, the weakening of formal quotas allowed established male elites to regain leadership positions, reducing the diversity of perspectives in governance and limiting women’s capacity to influence governance outcomes.

Under CA governance, formal gender quotas were replaced by informal nomination practices. While regulations allow conservation officers to ensure the representation of at least one woman in management committees and sub-committees, this often translates into symbolic rather than substantive participation. As one female treasurer noted, the absence of women in key decision-making roles reinforced perceptions of tokenism (IDI, 2022). Women’s representation was frequently framed through professional, skill-based selection criteria, which restricted the participation of those marginalized caste and ethnic groups. These criteria, coupled with the absence of formal quotas, reduce women’s roles to symbolic representation devoid of substantive influence. Decision-making processes are centralized among professional experts, predominantly male, and conducted through formal, bureaucratic meeting structures that further limit women’s participation.

Although CA regulations provide for the nomination of women to the management committee, these appointments are frequently perceived as nominal gestures. The absence of regular elections contributed to leadership stagnation, leaving limited opportunities for emerging women leaders (IDI, 2022). Additionally, women from marginalized castes and ethnic minorities described compounded exclusion, as CA officials primarily interacted with male political leaders, bypassing women during consultation processes. (IDI, 2022)

Taken together, this dimension shows a shift from quota-based participation under CF to symbolic representation under CA, with declining opportunities for women, particularly from disadvantaged social groups, to participate in political decision-making.

Women’s Networks and Agency: Collective to Isolation

Under CF regime, women’s networks were actively nurtured through dedicated women’s groups enabling them to negotiate resource access and participate in co-governance on equitable terms. Collective practices such as tree plantation and nursery establishment provided spaces where women’s roles in resource stewardship were made visible and integrated into governance. As one former female nursery manager, also a general user member recalled,

We used to collectively plant trees and establish nurseries to maintain the forest. This not only benefited the environment but also strengthened our participation in conservation. (IDI, 2022)

These practices reinforced women’s sense of collective identity and embedded their participation within decentralized governance processes, consistent with self-organization dynamics.

Women’s collective agency under CF extended into leadership and advocacy roles. A female Chairperson described her involvement in national advocacy for equity, stating,

I actively participated in the Forest Sector Gender and Social Inclusion Strategy 2008 campaigns to advocate for gender equity and social inclusion within forest management. (IDI, 2022)

Such platforms linked local governance to broader gender-responsive agendas, while simultaneously reshaping power relations within communities, a pattern illuminated by FPE’s focus on the gendered politics of participation.

By contrast, under CA governance, these collective spaces were eroded. Female general user members in a women-only focus group lamented that CA priorities have shifted toward activities aimed at maintaining conditions for wildlife, largely led by male national experts employing scientific methods and specialized equipment, with minimal community involvement. Activities once central to women’s collective stewardship, such as nursery management and plantation, have been deprioritized. One participant contrasted the two systems:

In CF, we had a community-based approach, and the forest resources were shared and managed collectively in community ownership. Under CA, governance prioritizes national objective over local needs. (IDI, 2022)

Here, SOT underscores how centralization disrupted decentralized participation, while FPE highlights how such restructuring displaced women’s authority.

Respondents also described how ancestral and experiential knowledge, particularly among Indigenous and ethnic minority was sidelined. As women in mixed-group discussion explained,

Centuries-old knowledge of plant species collection and forest regeneration is overlooked in favor of standardized bureaucratic rules. (Female participants, FGD, 2022)

This marginalization of women’s knowledge exemplifies the gendered and cultural power asymmetries emphasized by FPE. At the same time, the dismantling of community-driven practices illustrates how centralized governance undermined the self-organizing mechanisms through which local participation had previously been sustained.

Exclusion was further intensified for women at the intersections of caste, ethnicity, and geography. Marginalized women from remote areas noted that officials primarily consulted local male leaders, bypassing women’s voices. One ethnic general user member explained,

Officials rarely visited our communities and mostly consulted male political leaders, leaving women out of decision-making processes. (IDI, 2022)

Such practices reinforced patriarchal hierarchies, consolidating power among male leaders while diminishing women’s opportunities to influence conservation priorities.

Taken together, this dimension illustrates that women’s networks previously fostered under the decentralized CF model, were weakened under CA governance, leading to reduced collective agency and increased isolation. FPE highlights the gendered and intersectional exclusions, while SOT shows how the loss of decentralized governance constrained women’s collective participation.

Discussion

The transition from CF to CA governance in Gaurishankar substantially reduced women’s agency, visibility, and decision-making influence. FPE reveals intersecting exclusions in which gender, caste, and ethnicity shape access to authority, benefits, and recognition (Nightingale, 2006; Rocheleau et al., 1996). In parallel, SOT emphasizes how CF’s decentralized institutions fostered collective action, whereas CA’s centralized, expert-led governance weakened local agency (Ostrom, 2009). These frameworks together demonstrate how social inequalities and institutional structures constrain women’s participation. The discussion is organized around the four domains of resource governance, capacity building and economic opportunities, political participation, and women’s networks and agency, with analysis of their interconnections and theoretical implications (see Table A1).

Resource Governance

Under CF, women participated directly in resource governance through nursery establishment, forest improvement, conservation campaigns, with 68.3% attending consultations, 38.1% leading conservation campaigns, and 29.3% managing nurseries (section “Resource Governance: Decentralization to Centralization”). These activities recognized women’s ecological knowledge, including Indigenous practices of sustainable harvesting and plant identification (Female-only FGD, 2022). Such arrangements reflected self-organization dynamics, where communities designed rules, mobilized labor, and integrated diverse forms of knowledge into management. In the CA model, however, decision-making became centralized under technical experts. Women particularly from marginalized castes and ethnic groups were relegated to low-paid manual work, while men assumed supervisory roles connected to external projects such as hydropower and tourism. Women’s leadership in conservation campaigns fell from 38.1% to 3.5% under CA, and governance consultations shifted into formal offices dominated by male elites (section “Resource Governance: Decentralization to Centralization”). This restructuring sidelined local ecological knowledge, reflecting both epistemic injustice and gendered exclusions (Rocheleau et al., 1996). Similar patterns are seen in Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area and Tanzania’s Kilimanjaro National Park, where centralization reduced women’s participation and elevated men with formal technical training (Dahal, 2011; Dahal et al., 2014; S. Mariki, 2016). SOT helps explain how dismantling decentralized structures disrupted collective governance, narrowing women’s space for influence.

Capacity Building and Economic Opportunities

CF governance embedded empowerment in local institutions through leadership, adult education, and enterprise support, with revolving funds allocating 35% for women’s livelihoods. Two-thirds of women reported participating in such programs, gaining skills, income, and confidence (section “Capacity Building and Economic Opportunities: Empowerment to Marginalization”). These modest but tangible gains supported household resilience, enabling women to translate them to increased agency and influence in governance (Mello & Schmink, 2017; Osemeobo, 2005). Following the transition to CA, such programs were largely discontinued. Tourism and infrastructure became dominant economic sectors that disproportionately benefited men as guides, lodge operators, and contractors. Women were limited to low-paid informal jobs such as cleaning and cooking. Revolving funds and women-specific training were discontinued, and revenues from entry fees remained concentrated at the management authority level with minimal reinvestment in women’s initiatives (section “Capacity Building and Economic Opportunities: Empowerment to Marginalization”). Intersectionality is evident: marginalized women experienced compounded exclusion, losing both income opportunities and access to supportive networks. Indigenous women emphasized the absence of skill-building for homestay improvement and tourism services, revealing unmet needs. This mirrors findings from Namibia, where women’s benefits from tourism initiatives depended on access to context-specific training (Lendelvo et al., 2012). Through FPE, these dynamics illustrate how institutional priorities privilege male-dominated sectors, while SOT emphasizes how dismantling CF’s decentralized funds and training eroded women’s socio-economic participation.

Political Participation

CF governance institutionalized gender quotas, guaranteeing at least 50% female representation on executive committees and reserving leadership positions for women. These provisions facilitated substantive influence in resource allocation and protection strategies (section “Political Participation: Quotas to Tokenism”). These rules reflect SOT’s emphasis on rule-making that fosters inclusive, participatory governance (Ostrom, 2009). CA governance replaced formal quotas with informal nominations, resulting in a reduced presence of women, which was maintained at a symbolic level. Decision-making shifted to male technical experts in formal bureaucratic spaces that discouraged women’s participation. Marginalized women were often bypassed entirely in consultations, as officials primarily consulted with male community leaders (section “Political Participation: Quotas to Tokenism”). The absence of regular elections contributed to leadership stagnation. While women’s political participation declined, men’s roles evolved in varying ways. Some marginalized men lost influence, while those with political or economic connections gained opportunities, highlighting broader shifts in community power relations, not just women’s roles. Here, FPE highlights how intersecting inequalities reinforce layered exclusion in political spaces (Nightingale, 2006), and the erosion of quotas demonstrates how institutional design directly affects power distribution.

Women’s Networks and Agency

CF fostered women’s networks through nurseries, tree planting, and advocacy platforms, which strengthened visibility, collective identity, and connected local practices with national gender equity campaigns (section “Women’s Networks and Agency: Collective to Isolation”). These networks exemplified self-organization in action, enabling women to mobilize and assert influence locally and nationally. Under CA, male-led expert forums and technical priorities such spaces. Activities like nursery management were deprioritized. Women’s ancestral and Indigenous knowledge was sidelined, reflecting epistemic injustice (Rocheleau et al., 1996; Staddon, 2021). Without community-based structures, women’s capacity for collective action diminished, increasing isolation. Comparable declines in collective influence have been observed in Kilimanjaro National Park, Enduimet Wildlife Management Area, and Annapurna Conservation Area (Dahal et al., 2014; S. Mariki, 2016; Maharjan et al., 2020).

Interconnections and Theoretical Implications

These four domains are deeply interconnected. The loss of decentralized authority in resource governance curtailed women’s capacity building and economic opportunities. The erosion of quotas in political participation compounded the weakening of networks and agency, leaving women with fewer avenues for collective influence. Across all domains, three reinforcing trends: centralization, preference for technical expertise, and erosion of gender quotas systematically constrained women's participation, producing cumulative exclusion.

This study advances theory in two ways. First, it demonstrates how SOT explains declining women’s participation as decentralized arrangements under CF were dismantled by centralized CA structures. At the same time, the findings extend the theory by showing that self-organization alone was insufficient to sustain equity. Under CF, safeguards such as gender quotas in executive committees, revolving funds that allocated approximately 35% of resources to women’s livelihood initiatives, and structured training programs (e.g., adult education, leadership development, and empowerment training) created tangible pathways for women’s political inclusion, economic independence, and social confidence. Their removal under CA governance through tokenistic representation, discontinuation of revolving funds, and absence of women-specific training significantly undermined women’s participation (section “Declining Women’s Participation in Conservation Area Governance”). Thus, equity depended not only on localized governance but also on institutional safeguards that embedded women’s rights within governance processes. Second, FPE complements this institutional lens by revealing how gendered and intersectional power relations shaped differentiated outcomes. Women’s declining agency cannot be explained solely as a byproduct of centralization; it was also reinforced by caste and ethnicity-based exclusions, by the privileging of expert-driven knowledge over Indigenous and women’s experiential knowledge, and by the erosion of collective networks that had previously amplified women’s voices. By foregrounding social inequalities, FPE illustrates that the same institutional shifts have differentiated effects across gender, caste, and ethnicity.

Comparative experiences reinforce these insights. Bhutan’s conservation model, anchored in gender quotas, economic recognition, and integration of Indigenous knowledge, illustrated how institutional design can sustain more equitable participation (Wangmo & Magry, 2024). Together, these frameworks show that women’s exclusion in GCA is not merely a byproduct of centralization but the outcome of intersecting institutional and social dynamics. Achieving gender-responsive conservation outcomes require governance models that address both institutional design and structural inequalities (Elmhirst, 2015; Ostrom, 2009).

Conclusion

The transition from CF to CA governance in the GCA demonstrates how institutional redesign reshapes women’s participation in forest governance. Centralization, reliance on technical expertise, and the erosion of gender quotas curtailed women’s involvement across resource governance, economic opportunities, political participation, and collective networks. These shifts marginalized women’s ecological knowledge, disrupted access to livelihood support, weakened political representation, and dismantled community-based structures that had previously sustained women’s agency.

This study contributed to theory by demonstrating that decentralization governance such as CF benefits women’s participation as argued under SOT. However, the gains under CF were not strong enough to sustain the change to centralized governance under CA. The gains under CF were obtained not only because of governance structure but also because of other complementary safeguards such as quotas, capacity-building mechanisms, and financial support to sustain equitable participation. FPE further clarified how institutional restructuring interacts with gender, caste, and ethnicity, producing differentiated forms of exclusion that extend beyond centralization alone.

The findings emphasize the importance of governance reforms that are both institutionally inclusive and socially responsive. Strengthening gender-responsive conservation requires restoring participatory decision-making structures, embedding binding quotas, recognizing women’s ecological knowledge, and reinvesting in women’s networks and income-generating initiatives. Such reforms can enhance both equity and ecological legitimacy.

Future research should examine the long-term and context-specific impacts of governance transitions on women’s participation and ecological outcomes, with attention to intersectional differences. Longitudinal studies can track changes in women’s participation under centralized structures, while participatory action research can generate context-sensitive knowledge and empower marginalized women’s voices. Comparative evaluations across governance models can identify conditions under which decentralized and centralized approaches can be combined to sustain both ecological resilience and gender equity.

By integrating FPE and SOT, this study demonstrates that effective conservation governance must address both institutional design and structural inequalities to achieve outcomes that are ecologically sustainable and equitable.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Empirical Dimensions of Women’s Participation under CF and CA Governance.

Empirical dimension	Policies and practices		Theoretical interpretation (FPE and SOT)
Empirical dimension	Community forestry (CF)	Conservation area (CA)	Theoretical interpretation (FPE and SOT)
Legal and institutional framework	Forest Act (1993) and Forest Regulation (1995); Community Forest User Groups autonomous, decentralized	National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act (1973); hierarchical, centralized management	FPE: Centralization reduces women’s agency. SOT: Decentralization fosters self-organization and local participation.
Women’s representation	50% elected female representation on executive committees; leadership roles in Chair/Treasurer positions	Nominated female seats; symbolic participation, minimal decision-making power	FPE: Shift from substantive to tokenistic representation; compounded exclusion for ethnic/caste minorities. SOT: Loss of structured openings for emergent women leaders.
Resource governance	Active participation in nursery establishment (29.3%), tree plantation (7.7%), forest improvement (31.7%), conservation campaigns (38.1%), governance consultations (68.3%)	Participation limited to low-paid labor; restoration/nursery management led by CA authority; consultations centralized (40%)	FPE: Women’s ecological knowledge sidelined. SOT: Dismantling decentralized structures reduces local agency.
Capacity building and economic opportunities	Structured training: women’s empowerment (67.3%), adult education (40.3%), leadership (16.7%); 35% pro-poor funds allocated to women	Training discontinued; women concentrated in low-paid tourism/conservation labor; no dedicated funds for women-led initiatives	FPE: Restructuring of power marginalizes women. SOT: Disruption of embedded empowerment mechanisms. .
Political participation	Quotas ensured women’s formal decision-making roles and influence over resource allocation	Quotas replaced by informal nominations; decision-making centralized, expert-led male-dominated	FPE: From quota-based influence on symbolic representation. SOT: Reduced scope for collective, grassroots leadership.
Women’s networks and agency	Collective practices (nursery, plantation, advocacy campaigns) strengthened peer networks and governance participation	Collective spaces eroded; activities led by male experts; ancestral knowledge sidelined; isolation of marginalized women	FPE: Intensified gendered and intersectional exclusion. SOT: Loss of decentralized governance diminishes collective action and agency.

Source. Government of Nepal (1973, 1993, 1995).

Note. The table summarizes empirical dimensions of women’s participation under CF and CA governance. Interpretations are framed using Feminist Political Ecology (FPE) and Self-Organization Theory (SOT), highlighting how governance transitions shaped gendered agency, representation, and collective action.

Acknowledgements

The authors sincerely thank the local communities and households in the Gaurishankar Conservation Area for sharing their insights and experiences. The authors also wish to acknowledge Dr. Wendy Wright, Professor of Conservation Biology and Dean of Graduate Research at Federation University, Australia, and Dr. Naya Sharma Paudel, Environment and Governance Specialist, for their expert guidance and continued support throughout this work.

Ethical Considerations

This study received ethical clearance from the Research Ethics Review Committee (RERC) of the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand (Reference No. RERC 2022/002). Additional research approval was obtained from the Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation (DNPWC), Nepal (Reference No. 138).

Consent to Participants

All participants were fully informed about the purpose of the study, its academic use, and the potential for publication before their involvement. A comprehensive field safety plan protocol was developed and implemented under the supervision of the Principal Investigator to ensure the safety and ethical integrity of the research process.

ORCID iDs

Sikshya Adhikary Rana

Kyoko Kusakabe

Author Contributions

Sikshya Adhikary Rana: Conceptualization, formal analysis, methodology, data collection, data curation, writing-original draft, review, and editing. Kyoko Kusakabe: Conceptualization, Methodology, review, and editing. Srijana Baral: Conceptualization, analysis, review, and editing.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author(s) express gratitude for the partial financial support received for the field research from the Russel E. Train Education for Nature Program (EFN), WWF, USA, and AIT Partial Scholarship, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand. However, no funding was provided for the publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that has been used is confidential.

References

Arya

A. S.

Shukla

(2025). Connecting women’s empowerment and environmental sustainability: A review. Multidisciplinary Reviews, 8(9), Article 2025298. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025298

Bajracharya

Pradhan

M. S.

Sharma

(2011). Gender perspectives on community forestry in Nepal. International Forestry Review, 13(1), 16–27.

Baral

(2018). Attempts of recentralization of Nepal’s community forestry. Forestry: Journal of the Institute of Forestry, Nepal, 15, 97–115.

Cadman

Maraseni

Koju

U. A.

Shrestha

Karki

(2023). Forest governance in Nepal concerning sustainable community forest management and red panda conservation. Land, 12(2), 493. https://doi.org/10.3390/land12020493

Dahal

(2011). Understanding the participation of marginal groups in Annapurna Conservation Area, Nepal [Master’s thesis]. Texas A&M University. http://oaktrust.library.tamu.edu/handle/1969.1/ETD-TAMU-2011-12-10587

Dahal

Nepal

S. K.

Schuett

M. A.

(2014). Examining marginalized communities and local conservation institutions: The case of Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area. Environmental Management, 53(1), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0204-8

de Castro-Pardo

Azevedo

J. C

. (2021). A goal programming model to guide decision-making processes towards conservation consensuses. Sustainability, 13(4), 1959. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041959

Elmhirst

(2015). Feminist political ecology. In Perreault

Bridge

McCarthy

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook of political ecology (pp. 12–23). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315759289

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1993). The challenges of sustainable forest management: What future for the world’s forests?FAO.

10.

Gautam

N. P.

Bhusal

Raut

(2024). Community forestry in Nepal: A review of socioeconomic contribution to forest-dependents in a changing climate. Journal of Forest and Natural Resource Management, 4(1), 82–99.

11.

Goldman

M. J.

(2011). Strangers in their own land: Maasai and wildlife conservation in Northern Tanzania. Conservation and Society, 9(1), 65–79.

12.

Gosselin

Gauquelin

(2025). Rethinking knowledge cumulation: Foregrounding epistemic justice in environmental governance research. Environmental Policy and Governance, 35(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.2168

13.

Government of Nepal. (1973). National parks and wildlife conservation act (1973). Kathmandu, Nepal: Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Environment.

14.

Government of Nepal. (1993). Forest Act, 1993. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.

15.

Government of Nepal. (1995). Forest regulation. Nepal Law Book Library.

16.

Government of Nepal. (1996). Conservation area management regulations. https://dnpwc.gov.np/en/acts/

17.

Government of Nepal. (1999). Conservation area management guidelines. Department of National Parks and Wildlife Conservation. https://dnpwc.gov.np/en/acts/

18.

Government of Nepal. (2009). Guidelines for community forestry development programme. Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. https://www.lawcommission.gov.npw.lawcommission.gov.np

19.

Government of Nepal. (2014). Forest policy (2014). Kathmandu, Nepal: Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.

20.

Government of Nepal, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation. (2022). Forest regulation. Government of Nepal. https://www.lawcommission.gov.np

21.

Haller

Galvin

Meroka

Alca

Alvarez

(2008). Who gains from community conservation? Intended and unintended costs and benefits of participative approaches in Peru and Tanzania. The Journal of Environment & Development, 17(2), 118–144.

22.

James

Gibbs

Whitford

Leisher

Konia

Butt

(2021). Conservation and natural resource management: Where are all the women? Oryx, 55(6), 860–867. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320001349

23.

Laudari

H. K.

Sapkota

L. M.

Maraseni

Subedi

Pariyar

Kaini

T. R.

Lopchan

S. B.

Weston

Volkova

(2024). Community forestry in a changing context: A perspective from Nepal’s mid-hill. Land Use Policy, 138, Article 107018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.107018

24.

Lendelvo

Munyebvu

Suich

(2012). Linking women’s participation and benefits within the Namibian community based natural resource management program. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(12), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v5n12p27

25.

Maharjan

Shrestha

B. P.

Rana

S. A.

(2020). Women in protected area and buffer zone management in Nepal [Unpublished report]. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bishnu-Shrestha/publication/344043625_Women_in_Protected_Area_and_Buffer_Zone_Management_in_Nepal/links/5f4f801c458515e96d22f55e/Women-in-Protected-Area-and-Buffer-Zone-Management-in-Nepal.pdf

26.

Mariki

(2016). Social impacts of protected areas on gender in West Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.43028

27.

Mariki

S. B.

(2013). Conservation with a human face? Comparing local participation and benefit sharing from a national park and a state forest plantation in Tanzania. SAGE Open, 3(4), 2158244013512665. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013512665

28.

Mello

Schmink

(2017). Amazon entrepreneurs: Women’s economic empowerment and the potential for more sustainable land use practices. Women’s Studies International Forum, 65, 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2016.11.008

29.

Murer

Piccoli

(2022). Affirmative policy in Nepal’s community forestry: Does it make a difference in terms of social sustainability? Sustainability, 14(9), 5598. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095598

30.

National Trust for Nature Conservation. (2020). Gaurishankar Conservation Area management plan.

31.

Nightingale

(2006). The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24(2), 165–185. https://doi.org/10.1068/d01k

32.

Ojha

Paudel

N. S.

Timsina

Chaudhary

Baral

(2022). Ecosystem services from community forestry: Prospects and challenges for improving local livelihoods in Nepal. In Timsina

Maraseni

T. N.

Gauchan

Adhikari

Ojha

(Eds.), Agriculture, natural resources and food security (pp. 337–356). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09555-9_19

33.

Osemeobo

G. J.

(2005). Living on the forests: Women and household security in Nigeria. Small-Scale Forestry, 4(3), 343–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-005-0021-x

34.

Ostrom

(2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133

35.

Robbins

(2019). Political ecology: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Rocheleau

Thomas-Slayter

Wangari

(Eds.). (1996). Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experiences. Routledge.

37.

Staddon

(2021). Recognising and resisting injustice: Knowledge practices and politics amongst Nepal’s community forestry professionals. Rural Landscapes: Society, Environment, History, 8(1), 1–15.

38.

Sun

Mwangi

Meinzen-Dick

(2011). Gender, institutions and sustainability in the context of forest decentralisation reforms in Latin America and East Africa. Species Diversity, 2(3), 4–5.

39.

Thani

P. R.

Sharma

B. K.

Kandel

Nepal

(2019). Integrating biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services into the operational plan of community forests in Nepal: Status and gaps. Banko Janakari, 29(1), 3–11.

40.

Tsikata

(2003). Securing women’s interests within land tenure reforms: Recent debates in Tanzania. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(1–2), 149–183.

41.

P. H.

Tan

N. Q.

Dinh

N. C.

Nhi

T. T. P.

Tien

T. T. Q.

(2023). Uncovering gender disparities in payment for forest environmental services (PFES): A feminist political ecology view from Vietnam. Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 19, Article 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2023.100281

42.

Wangmo

Magry

M. A.

(2024). Evaluating forest conservation policies of Bhutan: Sensitiveness and responsiveness to gender considerations. Discover Conservation, 1, 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44353-024-00010-2