ArticleHuman ecology: an interdisciplinary journal2025
Access to Assets and Influence: Governance and Livelihoods in Protected Areas of the Annapurna and Everest Regions, Nepal.
Article in Human ecology: an interdisciplinary journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Calls to expand the global Protected Area (PA) network to halt biodiversity loss have considerable social implications, especially for rural communities resident in or around them. Particularly in the Global South, where power imbalances between communities and conservation authorities can be more acute, PA governance approaches and limits on livelihood activities vary. Employing a theoretical framework integrating political ecology, access theory, and the Sustainable Livelihoods model, I profiled the livelihoods of households in Nepal's Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), with a more decentralized governance model, and Sagarmatha National Park (SNP), with a more centralized management approach. In 2014, 705 household questionnaires were collected, alongside 70 interviews for cross-methods triangulation. Livelihood scores were significantly higher in ACA, to which the park's co-management approach has contributed through the creation of social capital, or influence. Linear regression models found that larger households and access to income from tourism best explained higher household livelihood scores, with revenue from livestock making an essential contribution in ACA but not SNP. Despite significant constitutional changes in Nepal since the data were collected, the relationship between PA governance and local livelihoods remains a critical issue for conservation in the country, the region, and the world. Access to influence, via involvement in PA governance, can improve access to multiple asset classes and therefore contribute to more positive socio-economic outcomes. In the context of achieving protected area targets in a socially-just manner, and in generating and maintaining social support for their governance, including and empowering local communities is therefore essential. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10745-025-00643-4.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.