Impacts of Buffer Zone Policy on Household Income: Evidence from Chitwan National Park, Nepal

 

1. Meaning of Buffer Zone Policy

A buffer zone policy is a conservation approach that designates the area surrounding a protected park or reserve to serve as a “transition belt.” In these zones, local people are allowed limited use of natural resources and receive benefits (like training, tourism opportunities, or community funds) in exchange for helping protect the core park. The idea is to balance conservation with community livelihood needs.

2. Introduction

Chitwan National Park (CNP), Nepal’s first national park (est. 1973), is a UNESCO World Heritage Site and home to endangered species like tigers and rhinos. However, when the park was created, many local households lost access to land, forests, and grazing areas. To address conflicts and improve relations, Nepal introduced Buffer Zone Management Policy in 1996, requiring 30–50% of park revenues to be shared with communities in surrounding buffer zones.

The central question is: Does living in or near buffer zones actually improve household income, or do restrictions harm local people?

3. Details of the Policy in Chitwan

• Revenue Sharing → 30–50% of park revenues allocated to buffer-zone community development.

• Community Forestry → locals get rights to use forest products sustainably.

• Livelihood Programs → skill training (tourism, handicrafts, small enterprise), infrastructure, and microcredit.

• Tourism Linkages → eco-tourism and homestays promoted in nearby villages.

4. Advantages

• Higher Household Income: Households inside buffer zones earn on average 19% more income than comparable households outside.

• Tourism Opportunities: Specialized tourism training increases household income by ~52%.

• Revenue Sharing Improves Welfare: Funding for schools, health posts, and local infrastructure.

• Reduced Conflict: Locals are more supportive of conservation because they share the benefits.

• Skill Development: Training and empowerment opportunities, especially for women and marginalized groups.

5. Disadvantages

• Unequal Benefits: Not all households gain; wealthier or better-connected families capture more opportunities.

• Weak Impact of Generic Training: Non-tourism livelihood trainings showed no significant income effect.

• Dependence on Tourism: Income gains rely heavily on tourism demand, which is vulnerable to political instability or pandemics.

• Limited Long-Term Security: Income benefits may not persist if support programs end.

• Implementation Gaps: Sometimes corruption or elite capture affects fund allocation.

6. In-depth Evidence from Chitwan

• A study of 728 households using propensity score matching showed causal income effects:

  • Buffer zone residency: +19% income.

  • Tourism training: +52% income.

  • Other training programs: No measurable effect.

• This means the design of interventions matters—just pouring money into generic skill-building doesn’t translate into income unless linked with actual markets.

• Beyond income, buffer zones also reduced poaching and illegal resource extraction, showing conservation gains alongside livelihood improvements.

7. Conclusion & Summary

The buffer zone policy around Chitwan National Park demonstrates that well-designed conservation policies can improve both biodiversity and household welfare. Households inside buffer zones earn more, particularly when programs are directly tied to tourism and market opportunities.

However, benefits are uneven, and over-reliance on tourism poses risks. To maximize impacts, buffer zone programs should:

• Focus on market-linked skills (like tourism, eco-products, handicrafts).

• Ensure equitable distribution of funds.

• Combine training with credit, enterprise support, and monitoring.

In summary: The Chitwan case shows buffer zones can be a win–win for people and nature, but only if resources are invested in targeted, accountable, and market-oriented ways.