Figure 1:
Study area, forest cover change detection and location of active water sources in Lamahi bottleneck area (LBA) including conservation pond. Kalapani CF is also shown along with network of community forest in LBA and inset showing the spatial location of LBA along Terai Arc Landscape.
Figure 2:
Interaction between forest, water, and wildlife in and around Lamahi bottleneck area. Presence of wildlife recorded between 2001–2016: (A) four horned antelope pellet group; (B) pugmark of leopard; (C) camera trapped hyena.
Table 1:
Forest and Canopy Cover Change between 2001–2016 in LBA.
| <10% | 10–40% | 40–70% | >70% | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 142 | 2617 | 7008 | 1334 | 11,101 |
| 2016 | 160 | 3638 | 7180 | 2124 | 13,102 |
| Changes | +13% | +40% | +2.5% | +59% | +2001 |
LBA, Lamahi bottleneck Area; Ha, hectare.
Figure 3:
Male adult bull elephant electrocuted along the lamp post in Lamahi Bottleneck Area (left). Male elephant leading the herd of 20 elephants that visited LBA in October 2003. Female elephant was recorded in LBA in 2005 (right).
Table 2:
Respondents (n=61) answers (in %) to ten standard structured question asked to each of the household representing Kalapani CFUG in and around LBA.
| S. no. | Statement on resource management | No | Yes | Well off | Medium | Deprived | Completed | Not completed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Access to safe drinking water through tube well and underground well | 4.9 | 95.1 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2 | Food security all-round the year (have food availability at the household level for 12 months) | 50.0 | 50.0 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 3 | Access to improved toilet in their backyard | 100.0 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | Access to alternative energy at the household | 47.5 | 52.5 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 5 | Grass availability from legal sources: private land, community forest etc. (have grass availability at the household level for 12 months) | 1.6 | 98.4 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 6 | Children (6–16 years) going to school in their communities | 21.3 | 78.7 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 7 | Female representation to Natural Resource Management committee | 50.8 | 49.2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 8 | Use of pesticide in the farmland | – | 100.0 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 9 | Female participation in economic engagement in their day to day activity | 83.6 | 16.4 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 10 | Well-being status based on participatory well-being ranking conducted by CFUG | – | – | 1.6 | 55.8 | 42.6 | – | – |
Well-being status calculated based on participatory wealth being ranking derived from the record of community forest user group. 11th question was on total income (cash and kind) in the household. CFUG, Community Forest User Group; LBA, Lamahi bottleneck area.
Table 3:
Comparison of covariates (income level, food availability and well-being status) against the user and non-user of conservation pond among the Kalapani CFUG.
| Variables | Qualifiers | User (case, in %) | Non-user (control, in %) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Income level* | 34 | 66 | |
| Food availability | Yes | 36.1 | 70.8 |
| No | 63.9 | 29.2 | |
| Well-being status | Deprived | 64 | 40 |
| Medium | 36 | 56 | |
| Better off | 4 |
*Of the total income; CFUG, Community Forest User Group.
Table 4:
Logistic regression between the dependent variable (use of conservation pond) and three independent variables (food availability, well-being status, and income).
| Parameters | B | S.E. | Wald | d.f. | Sig. | Exp (B) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food availability/security | −1.802 | 0.884 | 4.161 | 1 | 0.041 | 0.165 |
| Well-being status | 2.830 | 1.206 | 5.509 | 1 | 0.019 | 16.940 |
| Income | 0.059 | 0.019 | 9.371 | 1 | 0.002 | 1.061 |
| Constant | −3.982 | 1.379 | 8.338 | 1 | 0.004 | 0.019 |
d.f., Degree of freedom; Sig, significant; Exp (B), odd ratio.
Figure 4:
Chronological event (1950–2014) leading to restoration of forest in and around Lamahi Bottleneck Area.