IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON

Faculty of Natural Sciences

Centre for Environmental Policy

Applying the Diffusion of Innovation Theory to conservation: Understanding the drivers

influencing the adoption of community forestry in Nepal

By
Zoya Husain

A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MSc

12 September 2020

1
DECLARATION OF OWN WORK

I declare that this thesis, Applying the Diffusion of Innovation Theory to conservation:
Understanding the drivers influencing the adoption of community forestry in Nepal, is entirely my
own work and that where any material could be construed as the work of others, it is fully cited
and referenced, and/or with appropriate acknowledgement given.

Signature:
Name of student: Zoya Husain
Name of supervisor: Morena Mills

2
AUTHORISATION TO HOLD ELECTRONIC COPY OF MSc THESIS

Thesis title: Applying the Diffusion of Innovation Theory to conservation: Understanding the
drivers influencing the adoption of community forestry in Nepal

Author: Zoya Husain

I hereby assign to Imperial College London, Centre of Environmental Policy the right to hold an
electronic copy of the thesis identified above and any supplemental tables, illustrations,
appendices or other information submitted therewith (the “thesis”) in all forms and media,
effective when and if the thesis is accepted by the College. This authorisation includes the right
to adapt the presentation of the thesis abstract for use in conjunction with computer systems
and programs, including reproduction or publication in machine-readable form and incorporation
in electronic retrieval systems. Access to the thesis will be limited to ET MSc teaching staff and
students and this can be extended to other College staff and students by permission of the ET
MSc Course Directors/Examiners Board.

Signed: Name printed: Zoya Husain

Date: 12 September 2020

3
ABSTRACT
This research aimed to identify key drivers for the adoption of community forestry (CF) in Nepal
and to assess how the relevance of these key drivers changed over time. Identifying these drivers
served to address a critical research gap on why conservation initiatives reach scale. The Diffusion
of Innovation (DOI) theory was used to determine potential drivers for the adoption of CF in
Nepal. Nepal is an ideal case study because its CF program is one of the oldest and considered
one of the most successful examples of community-based natural resource management in the
world. Semi-structured interviews with twenty-one experts in CF development served to identify,
evaluate and understand the key drivers for the adoption of CF in Nepal. This research found that
the innovation and context characteristics of the DOI theory were most influential for the
adoption of CF. The international environment, specifically donor-funded interventions, was vital
for the development of early national policy that facilitated the adoption of CF. However,
misalignment in donor and community interests and shifts in funding away from CF, have posed
challenges for its sustained adoption. In addition, although communities have received benefits
from CF, issues of equity have emerged due to the unequal distribution of benefits to community
members. Over time, communities no longer adopted CF only to fulfil their subsistence needs,
but also to benefit from capacity building and opportunities for learning. This study reveals that
conservation initiatives need to incorporate drivers that influence their adoption and adapt to
the changing relevance of these drivers over time in order to stay resilient in the future.

4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Morena Mills, for all of her guidance, support,
encouragement during this project. I would also like to thank Bharati Pathak and Sushma
Shrestha for their insight and feedback throughout this process. Thank you to Arundhati Jagadish
and the Diffusion of Innovation research team at Conservation International for their continued
guidance and training.

I would also like to thank all of the participants for their knowledge and willingness to participate.

A special thank you goes to my family and friends who have always encouraged and supported
me. I am truly grateful and could not have done this without them.

Finally, I would like to thank the staff and my fellow students in the MSc Environmental
Technology Program. I have learned so much this past year, and I am thankful to be part of a
network of inspiring, collaborative, and unique individuals.

5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 8
OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 8
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 8
METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 8
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................... 9
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS................................................................................... 10
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 12
CASE STUDY – COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL ................................................................. 14
METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 18
ETHICS ......................................................................................................................................... 22
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................. 23
DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................... 31
INFLUENCE OF INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT............................................................................................. 31
INFLUENCE OF RELATIVE ADVANTAGE ................................................................................................. 33
INFLUENCE OF LEARNING.................................................................................................................. 35
LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................. 36
FUTURE RESEARCH.......................................................................................................................... 37
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 40
APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 50
APPENDIX A: DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION FRAMEWORK ......................................................................... 50
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW GUIDE ........................................................................................................ 56
APPENDIX C: INDIVIDUAL TOC .......................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIX D: THRESHOLD FOR THE UNIFIED TOC .................................................................................. 70

6
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CBNRM – Community-Based Natural Resource Management
CF – Community Forestry
CFUG – Community Forest User Group
DFO – District Forest Officer
DOI – Diffusion of Innovation
FECOFUN – Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal
GEM – General Elimination Methodology
NGO – Non-governmental organisation
SDG – Sustainable Development Goals
ToC – Theory of Change

LIST OF TABLES, FIGURES, AND IMAGES

Table 1: Participant Group Information…………………………………………………………………………………….20

Figure 1: Trends of community forest (CF) formation in Nepal…………………………………………………..16

Figure 2: Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Framework……………………………………………………………………19
Figure 3: Unified Theory of Change (ToC)………………………………………………………………………………….24

Image 1: Map of Nepal’s ecological regions………………………………………………………………………………14

7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Applying the Diffusion of Innovation Theory to conservation: Understanding the
drivers influencing the adoption of community forestry in Nepal

Zoya Husain Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London

Supervisor: Morena Mills Academic year: 2019/2020

Objectives
This research had two primary objectives:
1) To determine the key drivers for the successful adoption of community forestry in Nepal.
2) To assess how the importance of these key drivers changed over time.

Introduction
Conservation initiatives attempt to tackle global environmental challenges, but often fall short
because they inadequately incorporate the drivers that facilitate their adoption. The Diffusion of
Innovation (DOI) theory enables the identification and understanding of these drivers that
facilitate adoption1. This study fills a critical research gap by contributing to the limited literature
on why conservation initiatives reach scale. The results of this study can help inform policymakers
and conservation practitioners about the key drivers needed for implementing sustainable
conservation initiatives. The DOI theory is used to examine the community forestry (CF) program
in Nepal because it is one of the oldest and most successful examples of community-based
natural resource management in the world 2.

Methodology
This study was structured and performed using the General Elimination Methodology (GEM).
Firstly, this method involved a literature review to find evidence supporting the 39 drivers from
the DOI Framework. These drivers belonged to three broader characteristics: innovation, adopter

1 Rogers, 2003
2 Thwaites et. al, 2017; Roka, 2019

8
and context. Then, semi-structured interviews with 21 experts in CF development were used to
identify and understand the most influential drivers for adoption. Participants answered open-
ended questions about adoption and completed a sorting activity designed to elicit their Theory
of Change (ToC). These ToCs displayed the drivers that participants considered to be most
influential for adoption, as well as the links that participants identified between drivers. Finally,
a unified ToC was generated using the most influential drivers from participants’ individual ToCs.

Unified Theory of Change (ToC). The pink nodes display the most influential drivers selected by half or more of the participants. The
yellow nodes display the most influential drivers selected by more than one-third, but less than half of the participants. The thickness of
lines displays the number of participants that selected a link (from 3-7 participants). The dotted lines display links that were not explicitly
stated by participants but were inferred based on their discussion of these drivers.

Results
A majority of participants identified drivers belonging to the innovation and context
characteristics of the DOI theory as most influential for the early and widespread adoption of CF
in Nepal. The international environment, specifically donor-funded projects, was vital for the
development of early national policy that facilitated the adoption of community forestry.
Participants stated that trust between communities and the government primarily served to
hinder adoption both in the early and widespread adoption of community forestry in Nepal. This
mistrust was due to the lack of ownership that communities had over their forests. In addition,

9
the greatest cost to communities was their time and benefits were accrued primarily based on
geography. Over time, participants identified a shift away from communities adopting CF only to
fulfil their subsistence needs to now also engaging in capacity building and learning between
communities. Participants also determined that the recent decline in the adoption of community
forestry had been a result of government resistance in land handover and outmigration.

Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications

The results of this study revealed three key themes for adoption: the influence of international
support, the influence of relative advantage, and the influence of learning. International support
through donor financed interventions provided the financial and technical support needed for
the early policy development and adoption of CF in Nepal. However, in order to ensure that
policies are adapted to local contexts and needs, it is beneficial for governments to involve
donors in every phase of development for an initiative. In addition, it is vital that donors continue
to invest in strengthening existing institutions such as CF, rather than into new unsustainable
programs. Tangible benefits are essential for communities to adopt an initiative, but it is essential
that these benefits are equitably distributed. In order to help mitigate this inequity, it is important
to address equity issues during conservation planning. In addition, governments need to
implement policies that support complete devolution through strong tenure rights for
participatory forest management to work beyond individual cases. It is also critical for
governments to tailor conservation initiatives to build social capital that allows communities to
understand management rules. Federal governments should further devolve power to lower
scales of government to ensure the continuation of conservation initiatives. This research was
constrained by the inability to conduct field-based research. Future research could focus on
drivers that were mentioned by participants as most influential, but for which literature is
currently limited. In addition, a more diverse pool of participants, such as forest users that were
present during different stages of adoption, would be beneficial to gain differing perspectives.
This study could be reproduced on a broader scale by taking its methods and framework and
applying it to other conservation initiatives. Ultimately, future research could help build a
comprehensive understanding of what drives the success and failure of conservation initiatives.

10
11
INTRODUCTION
A steady rise in global population over the last century has given way to critical environmental
challenges, such as forest degradation and natural resource depletion (Dovers & Butler, 2017).
Conservation initiatives have attempted to tackle these challenges but face limited success
because they often fail to simultaneously advance effective conservation while engaging in
inclusive local participation (Forgie et al., 2001). These initiatives inadequately incorporate
drivers encouraging adoption, such as integrating local knowledge, adapting to the local context,
and building trust within local communities (Forgie et al., 2001; Dasgupta, 2016). Identifying
these drivers and assessing how they influence the adoption of conservation initiatives may
provide insight as to why certain conservation initiatives succeed while others fail (Sirimorok &
Rusdianto, 2020). This knowledge is a vital component of conservation efforts so that they can
effectively tackle and overcome current and future environmental challenges.

The Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory provides a framework to explain the rates and patterns
by which an idea is adopted and spread through a social system (Rogers, 2003). It suggests that
the extent to which an innovation will be adopted is dependent on three components:
characteristics of the innovation, characteristics of the adopter, and characteristics of the social-
ecological context (ibid). Despite being applied to other sectors such as medicine, business, and
agriculture, the DOI theory has only recently been used to examine conservation initiatives
(Wejnert, 2002; Mascia & Mills, 2018). The analysis of conservation initiatives using the DOI
theory enables researchers to gain a multifaceted understanding of the patterns and trends
contributing to the successful widespread adoption of these initiatives (Mascia & Mills, 2018).

Therefore, this research project uses the DOI theory to identify the interlinkages between the
most influential drivers for the adoption and spread of community forestry (CF) in Nepal. Nepal
is a unique case study to apply the DOI theory because its CF program is one of the earliest and
most successful examples of community-based natural resource management in the world
(Thwaites et al., 2017; Roka, 2019). This project fills a critical research gap because it contributes
to the limited literature discussing why conservation initiatives reach scale. The findings from this

12
project can help inform policymakers and conservation practitioners on how to implement
appropriately tailored, cost-effective and sustainable conservation initiatives (Mascia & Mills,
2018). Ultimately, this can help ensure the protection of the earth’s natural environment for
current and future generations.

This research will contribute to the growing literature on how and why conservation initiatives
reach scale by fulfilling two fundamental aims:

Aim 1 Determine the key drivers for the adoption of community forestry in Nepal.

Aim 2 Assess how the importance of these key drivers has changed over time.

To fulfil these aims, the following sections of this research will meet these objectives:

Case Study Understand Nepal’s socio-ecological context and its history with CF by
reviewing the current literature.

Methodology Identify potential drivers for the adoption of CF in Nepal based on the
Innovation, Adopter, and Context Characteristics of the Diffusion of Innovation
theory and test them using the General Elimination Methodology.

Results Determine the key drivers for the adoption of CF in Nepal to create a Theory
of Change (ToC) and assess how these drivers have changed over time.

Discussion Examine the broader implications of the results for the future of CF and
conservation.

13
CASE STUDY – COMMUNITY FORESTRY IN NEPAL

Image 1. Map of Nepal’s ecological regions (Thwaites et al., 2017). These three ecological regions follow the political boundaries of
Nepal’s districts.

Nepal is a landlocked South Asian country located in the Himalayas and the Indo Gangetic Plain,
surrounded by China, India, Bangladesh and Bhutan. The country covers 147,350 square
kilometres, approximately 40% of which is forested. It is divided into three ecological regions as
seen in Image 1: the northern Himalaya mountains, the central hills and the southern lowland
Terai (Luintel et al., 2018; Thwaites et al., 2017). It has a population of 28.6 million, two-thirds of
whom live and work in rural areas where forests are an essential asset to their subsistence needs
and livelihoods (World Bank, 2020; Adhikari et al., 2004). While wealthier households can rely on
alternative income streams, forests remain integral for the daily survival of the landless and poor
(World Bank - OED, 2001; Thoms, 2008). Disparities in wealth and socio-economic outcomes are
a result of the heterogeneity of Nepalese society, where geographic isolation alongside deeply
rooted social hierarchies of caste, gender, ethnicity, and class have persisted over time (Ojha et
al., 2009; Sapkota, Keenan & Ojha, 2018). These disparities have often resulted in elite-

14
dominated decision-making, effectively excluding marginalised and disadvantaged groups, such
as the poor, lower castes, and women (Pandit & Bevilacqua, 2011; Lewark et al., 2011).

In the last four decades, the CF program in Nepal has developed to focus on addressing these
second generation1 concerns of inequity and livelihood disparity (Lawrence, 2007). However, the
CF program was initially established out of Nepal’s need for reforestation and forest conservation
(Thwaites et al., 2017). Nepal’s nationalisation of its forests in 1957 led to large-scale
deforestation over the following two decades (Bluffstone, 2018; Luintel et al., 2018). This
nationalisation disrupted local management structures by effectively removing local incentives
for conservation, which led to land-clearing and unregulated forest collection (Bluffstone, 2018).
Thus, emerged Eckholm’s (1976) narrative of the theory of Himalayan environmental
degradation, spurring international concern and funding for the degraded state of Nepal’s middle
hills (World Bank - OED, 2001; Ojha et al., 2009). The Nepalese government’s response was a call
for local participation in the late 1970s, with the essential support of bilateral and multilateral
donor-funding, to conserve and protect local forests (Luintel et al., 2018; Ojha et al., 2009). The
government’s first attempt in decentralising forest management commenced through the
Decentralization Act (1982) and the Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (1988), which developed
the concept of “user groups” through the panchayat (local government) approach (Dahal &
Chapagain, 2008). However, the real breakthrough for community-based management in Nepal
occurred later through the Forest Act (1993) (ibid). This act recognised the need for local peoples’
participation in forest management and provided a legal basis for the implementation of CF,
allowing local communities to access and manage their local forests directly (ibid; Dahal et al.,
2017).

1
For participatory forest management, first generation issues relate to the foundation of the initiative, such as
tenure and regulation (Lawrence, 2007). Second generation issues relate to the socio-ecological system, such as
issues of inequity, benefit sharing and decision-making (ibid). Third generation issues relate to adaptive
management, such as sustainability (ibid).

15
Figure 1. Trends of community forest (CF) formation in Nepal (Pandey & Paudyall, 2015). The creation of national policies supporting
participatory forest management during the early 1990s in Nepal led to a surge in adoption of CF by communities. However, armed
conflict between the Nepalese government and Maoist rebels between the late 1990s to 2006 resulted in the decreased adoption of CF.
Following this period of armed conflict, there was a slight increase in adoption from 2006-2010. However, adoption after 2010 rapidly
reduced and reached a standstill in 2013. This standstill in new adoption of CF is due to the government’s resistance in handing over new
forests to communities.

Since its establishment, Nepal’s CF program has been leading the development of some of the
world’s most progressive and comprehensive forest policies (Pokharel, 2012; Thwaites et al.,
2017). The program has helped to recognise the traditional ways of management that indigenous
peoples and communities have always had over their forests (Gilmour, 2016). In addition, CF has
been adopted by around approximately 19,000 community forest user groups (CFUGs) and has
included the participation of roughly 35% of the country’s population (Hang, 2017; Bluffstone,
2018). Furthermore, it has seen the establishment of the most important civil society association
in Nepal, The Federation of Community Forestry Users Nepal (FECOFUN), which currently
includes over 16,000 CFUGs (8.5 million people) from almost all of Nepal’s 77 districts (FECOFUN,
2020; Gilmour, 2016).

16
Nevertheless, despite its successes, CF has faced increasingly challenging second and third
generation issues (Lawrence, 2007; Gilmour, 2003). In the last three decades, Nepal has
experienced political turmoil, population growth, and excessive dependence on its forest
resources (Chhetri et al., 2013). Figure 1 displays how these experiences have impacted the
establishment of new CFUGs (McDougall et al., 2013; Gilmour, 2016). The last decade has also
seen resistance from the Nepalese government in the handover of additional forests to
communities. This resistance is due to the high commercial value of the remaining unrelinquished
forested lands, especially in the Terai region of Nepal (Bluffstone, 2018). As a result, few new
CFUGs have been able to establish themselves in the last decade (Dahal & Chapagain, 2008).
While the forest has regenerated, conditions for the poor have not significantly improved
because CF has failed to effectively address broader socio-economic and institutional issues
(Chhetri et al. 2013). More recently, CF faces its greatest challenge yet as the global economy
grows more complex and is leading towards rapidly changing international and national
pressures and priorities (Thwaites et al., 2017). Globalisation has led to a shift away from
subsistence, resulting in the outmigration of youth from villages in pursuit of more profitable
opportunities (Ojha et al., 2009). This out-migration has led to the ageing and feminisation of
rural agriculture and CF management (ibid). Thus, developing strategies that effectively build on
current drivers of adoption can contribute to the future resilience in the adoption of CF in Nepal
(Adhikari et al., 2004; Sapkota et al., 2020).

17
METHODS
This research was structured and performed using the General Elimination Methodology (GEM),
a theory-driven qualitative evaluation method used for sourcing a list of possible causes for an
event or outcome (Scriven, 2008; Romero, In prep.). GEM offers a unique lens to examine
conservation initiatives because it facilitates an understanding of how and why an initiative
succeeds, rather than merely looking at its success (Chen, 2012). This method consisted of
systematically identifying and eliminating alternative causal explanations for observed results of
CF in Nepal (White & Phillips, 2012). As compared to other theory-based methodologies, GEM’s
systematic evaluation process adds rigour and helps achieve a high level of confidence in the
results (Tsui & Lucas, 2013; Game et al., 2018).

This method involved an initial literature review of both peer-reviewed and grey literature from
key databases such as ScienceDirect, Web of Science and Jstor. This review gathered qualitative
evidence for the potential drivers for adoption of CF based on a framework adapted from the
DOI theory (Jagadish et al., In prep.; Rogers, 2003; Wejnert, 2002). Figure 2 displays 12 of these
drivers from all three characteristics of the DOI framework (Jagadish et al., In prep.). The full
framework is shown in Appendix A. If a piece of evidence did not fit under one of the framework’s
drivers, it was included as an additional driver. These drivers were adapted from the general DOI
framework for the interviews by incorporating evidence from the literature review that was
specific to the Nepalese CF context (e.g. the degree to which communities of forest users know
community forestry rules, procedures and benefits). In total, 39 drivers were included to ensure
that they encompassed the components of the DOI theory with sufficient complexity and clarity.

18
Figure 2. Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Framework (Jagadish et al., In prep.). This figure displays 12 drivers from the DOI framework. The
text within these boxes was condensed for the sake of clarity.

19
Although GEM provides a guide for evaluating the drivers for adoption, it does not specify the
research design (White & Phillips, 2012). Thus, semi-structured interviews were chosen to
deduce the most influential drivers for adoption because they allowed for unique participant
perspectives to be expressed (Keller & Conradin, 2010). Participants were selected based on the
following two criteria: (1) their extensive involvement with CF in Nepal and (2) their involvement
in public and private sector activities, in which they have worked first-hand in advancing CF.
These participants were sought out because of their involvement in various stages of CF
development in Nepal, thus offering differing and novel insights into the potential drivers
influencing both early and widespread adoption. Initial participants were selected through
purposive sampling, followed by a snowballing technique to identify the remaining participants
(Sharma, 2017). These initial participants were identified primarily through the initial literature
review with the help of Bharati Pathak, Chairperson of FECOFUN. Interviews were conducted
until data saturation was reached. Table 1 displays the number of participants that belonged to
the different participant groups interviewed. A total of 21 participants were interviewed,
averaging 27.6 years of involvement in CF among them.

Table 1. Participant Group Information. This table displays the number of participants that belonged to each participant group
interviewed for this study. There were 21 participants interviewed for this study, but the number of participants displayed in this table
does not add to be 21 because some participants belonged to more than one participant group.

Participant Group No. of Participants

Academics 4

Intergovernmental organisation practitioner 4

Non-profit practitioner 6

Government officials 4

Consultant 4

Non-governmental organisation practitioner 3

20
 International Development agency practitioner 9

The interview guide (as seen in Appendix B) was adapted from Romero (In prep.). It consisted of
three parts: (1) open-ended questions focusing on the participants’ experience with CF in Nepal,
(2) an online sorting activity that was designed to elicit participants’ Theory of Change (ToC), and
(3) open-ended questions on the costs, benefits and abandonment of CF in Nepal. The activity
was undertaken through an online platform called LucidChart (Lucid Software Inc., n.d.). The
interviewer shared their screen with participants, while each participant narrated their decisions
as they completed the activity. Firstly, participants assessed if the 39 drivers influenced adoption
(either by facilitating or hindering it) or if they had no impact on adoption. Participants added
any additional drivers that they felt were influential for the adoption of CF but were missing from
the 39 drivers they were presented with. This was in order to evaluate the comprehensiveness
of these drivers. Secondly, participants organised the drivers that they deemed influential to
adoption by most influential and least influential. This step was repeated until 15 or fewer drivers
remained in the most influential category. Lastly, the participants discussed the relationships and
linkages between the remaining most influential drivers. A ToC was created during the last stage
of the sorting activity because it served to build on each participant’s unique experiences by
identifying their narrative for the causal linkages leading up to the adoption of CF in Nepal (Taplin
& Clark, 2012; Tallis et al., 2019). The interviews averaged approximately one and a half hours
each.

Interviews were transcribed using Otter.ai (2020) and then coded using ATLAS.ti (2019) to
develop each participant’s ToC further. Coding was done to understand participant perceptions
of the drivers that led to the adoption of CF in Nepal. Each driver was assigned to a single code
(e.g. social costs or benefits of CF as perceived by communities of forest users), and additional
codes were created for any thematic clusters (e.g. abandonment). Simultaneous coding was used
to determine the overall themes and then to identify the specific patterns and trends within each
participant’s transcript (Hay, 2005). To ensure the validity of the coded transcripts, an

21
independent researcher randomly selected three of the transcripts and replicated the coding
process, which resulted in an 86.2% match.

Each participant’s ToC was validated through a secondary review of the sources from the initial
literature review and any additional sources that were provided by the participants. If no
evidence was found through this process, searches on Google and Google Scholar were done for
these most influential drivers. In each of the search engines, the first 50 results were reviewed,
or until direct evidence was found. One piece of direct evidence was considered sufficient to
validate a driver.

Finally, a unified ToC was generated using each participants’ ToC. This was done by determining
a threshold based on the following: (1) the number of participants that identified a driver as most
influential and (2) the number of participants that identified a link between a pair of drivers. The
threshold was set at one-third or more of the participants for the most influential drivers and
three or more for the links between drivers. This was done in order to balance the trade-off
between complexity and clarity of the ToC. The threshold for the drivers took priority over the
threshold of the links. Thus, every driver identified by one-third or more of the participants was
included, but only links identified for these specific drivers by three or more of the participants
were included.

Ethics
This research project was reviewed and approved by the Imperial College London ethics
committee. Verbal consent was obtained before interviewing participants, and all data collected
during this research project was analysed and stored without compromising the anonymity of
the participants. Participant data was only used for this research project and will be used for a
subsequent peer-reviewed publication.

22
RESULTS
Participants were presented with 39 potential drivers for the adoption of CF in Nepal. These
drivers belonged to the three sets of characteristics from the DOI theory: innovation, adopter,
and context. A majority of participants identified drivers from the innovation and context
characteristics as being most influential for both the early and widespread adoption of CF in
Nepal (displayed as pink nodes in Figure 3). This study identifies the early adoption of CF to
include first generation issues when the focus of CF was on forest regeneration (Rai et al., 2016;
Lawrence, 2007). The widespread adoption of CF includes the second and third generation issues
when the focus of CF shifted to supporting livelihoods and forest governance (ibid). Figure 3
displays the unified ToC created based on the most influential drivers and links that more than
one-third of participants identified in their individual ToCs for both the early and widespread
adoption of CF.

23
Figure 3. Unified Theory of Change (ToC). The pink nodes display the most influential drivers selected by half or more of the participants.
The yellow nodes display the most influential drivers selected by more than one-third, but less than half of the participants. The thickness
of lines shows the number of participants that selected the link (from 3-7 participants). The dotted lines show links that were not explicitly
stated by participants but were inferred based on their discussion of these drivers. The nodes with an asterisk (*) were presented to
participants separately but have been compounded into one driver based on participant perceptions of their interrelations.

24
The top left cluster of Figure 3 displays drivers attributed to the context characteristics
influencing adoption. The international environment node (symbolised with an asterisk) is
associated with international policies and international support, which participants identified as
being interrelated. Most participants (n=11) stated that during early adoption, there was a lack
of international policies, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity or the Kyoto Protocol,
that promoted participatory forest management. However, there was international support and
funding that facilitated the adoption of CF. Bilateral and multilateral donor-funded projects were
identified (n=15) as the backbone of this international support. Not all participants agreed, one
participant contradicted this by stating that CF was not dependent on the international support
and funding that was present at that time. Participants (n=4) explained that this international
environment also served to influence the early development of national policy that facilitated
the adoption of CF, including The Master Plan for the Forestry Sector (1989) and the Forest Act
(1993). One participant stated that in the early 1980s, donor-funded districts:

“were given a special mandate by the government to test the modality [of CF], to
test the boundaries. Once [they] did that, then [they] refined the policies...defined
the policies and [wrote] the policies…[The] policies were built on the experience
of the previous decade, not top-down policy [that] was implemented in isolation,
but rather policy which evolved out of the experience in the field.”

Early adoption depended on the implementation support provided by these national policies
because communities faced strong resistance from the forest department for forest handover
(n=12). In addition, participants stated that a limited number of local organisations or NGOs
existed during the early adoption of CF (n=4) and that there was a lack of trust between the
Nepalese government and communities (n=14). Initially, the communities were wary of the
government because they feared that the land handed over to them would be taken back by the
government in the future. Trust or lack of trust between communities and their local District
Forest Officers (DFO)s could facilitate or hinder adoption, respectively. Governments attempted
to break down this mistrust, with the help of international donor-funding, by providing incentives

25
for DFOs to pursue higher education overseas in exchange for successfully promoting CF in their
districts (n=3). Additionally, national policy was also influenced by forest degradation because it
drove government handover of forests in the mid-hills (n=10). One participant explained that
before CF, the DFOs and forest office staff were struggling to manage the illegal logging and
overexploitation of the forests by themselves.

When participants discussed these drivers, they emphasised the changes in the importance of
these drivers over time. Although forest degradation had been an influential early driver (n=14),
it became less so during the widespread adoption of CF when the forests began to regenerate.
Additionally, the international environment, particularly in international donor-funded districts,
supported the formation of local organisations that helped facilitate the adoption of CF (n=10).
While these international donor-funded projects initially focused on forest degradation, they
evolved and shifted to focus on empowering communities to take control of their resources. One
participant stated that international donors have recently been shifting their funding away from
CF into conservation and agricultural areas, diminishing their focus on CF. Furthermore, national
policies have also created an enabling environment for local organisations to form. This enabling
environment has allowed organisations such as FECOFUN to aid in facilitating both the adoption
of CF as well as the capacity building and extension support that followed the establishment of
CFUGs (n=14). In recent years, bureaucracy and bureaucratic processes have hindered
institutional capacity building of CF and have weakened trust between the Nepalese government
and communities. Two participants explained that this mistrust has become more apparent in
the Terai, where communities have faced government resistance (due to the high commercial
value of the land) in forest handover, as compared to the mid-hills. This mistrust has only been
heightened by recent national policies which have not been evolving with CF (n=3). One
participant spoke about the newest Forest Act (2019), saying:

“If you compare the legislation over time, including the new Forest Act of 2019,
there is very little difference [from its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1993]. The
new act is not adjusted to the new context, either in terms of federalism or in

26
 terms of how forestry should be seen in Nepal...These deep structures maintain
the [outdated] way [of] forestry, the forest department, the types of corruption
that sits around it, and the whole political process. It retains a particular form of
forestry, which is not really that supportive of the regional visions around
community forestry.”

In addition, drivers attributed to the innovation characteristics, along with two drivers attributed
to the adopter characteristics, were perceived as crucial in driving the adoption of CF (bottom
right and left cluster, Figure 3). Participants discussed the following drivers as being interrelated:
the compatibility of CF with values and beliefs, the compatibility of CF with current forest use,
and the compatibility of CF with subsistence needs. Thus, they are combined under the
compatibility node (symbolised with an asterisk) in Figure 3. Participants (n=21) stated that prior
to and during early adoption, local livelihoods of communities were heavily dependent on
subsistence. A few participants (n=6) elaborated further, saying that before CF, the traditional
use of forests by communities was essentially CF without legal standing. Thus, communities
wanted to adopt CF to formalise these traditional practices and improve the state of the
degraded forests for their livelihoods. Therefore, CF was compatible with the values and beliefs
of communities because the program built on existing practices within communities. However,
not all participants believed this, one said:

“[Communities] weren't really managing their own forests when it was state land
and it [resulted in] a free for all...They couldn't control the use, so [CF]…[was not]
compatible with [their current use, values and beliefs]...it was different from that.
[CF] was going to be better than that; it was going to replace it.”

Participants (n=8) also stated that communities were diverse and had different needs, so the
ability to tailor CF to suit their needs was an important driver. However, one participant noted
that the ability to tailor CF to suit community needs was not present during early adoption. The
compatibility node is also linked with the well-being of communities because the economic well-

27
being of local communities depended on their ability to meet their subsistence needs from the
forest (n=5). In addition, a majority of the participants (n=13) stated that communities did not
perceive economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits before the early adoption of CF.
Two participants said that communities would have adopted CF regardless of whether they
perceived costs or not because they were desperate to fulfil their subsistence needs. Almost all
of the participants (n=16) stated that a hidden social cost to communities was the cost of their
time, which was incurred prior to or immediately after adoption. They also said that often these
costs were disproportionately incurred by the poor in comparison to the rich. Moreover, the
amount of time it would take communities to receive benefits from the forest was primarily
dependent on geography (n=17). However, participants stated that benefits also depended on
the condition of the forest when it was handed over, the type of forest products communities
expected to obtain, and which members of the communities were receiving these benefits.

Participants also identified that the drivers belonging to the innovation and adoption
characteristics clusters changed over time. All twenty-one participants who had included the
subsistence needs driver as being most influential for the early adoption identified that there had
been a shift in the reliance of communities on forests during the widespread adoption of CF.
Several participants (n=14) attributed this shift to the remittance that some members from
communities receive from family members migrating overseas or shifting to cities. Participants
explained that the hardships of village life have left youth desiring to find better income and work
elsewhere. Globalisation has had a massive impact on the extent to which communities currently
depend on their forests. However, since the development of CF, communities have been able to
increasingly tailor CF to meet their needs (n=9). They are required to submit quinquennial
management plans to their local forest offices. These plans address a diverse range of needs
based on factors such as community structure, size of forests, and desired forest products. As CF
has evolved, communities have also been able to perceive costs and benefits from adopting CF.
Nevertheless, structural problems have emerged with CF that serve to exclude certain groups
from receiving these benefits, such as the poor, marginalised, and women. Participants stated
that these issues are apparent in the ability of communities to participate in decision making

28
since the tendency is often for a few influential community members to make the decisions for
the community (n=5). Thus, the widespread adoption of CF has created opportunities for these
elite members to gain political empowerment through CF (n=11). This is because influential
positions in CF can provide elites with a path to government positions.

The top right cluster (titled “Learning”) and the two individual drivers (“champions pushing for
the adoption” and “the degree to which communities know CF rules, procedures and benefits”)
in Figure 3 were identified by participants as being most influential, but without three identified
links to other drivers. During the early adoption of CF, most participants said that the three nodes
in learning: opportunities for learning between communities of forest users facilitated by
external organisations, visibility of practice and results of CF and proximity between communities
of forest users, were not important. However, in regard to champions, some participants (n=9)
stated that champions from both communities and government were vital in the early advocacy
of CF. One participant explained that some DFOs took a risk by championing CF, and thus played
a huge part in encouraging the first communities to adopt CF. Participants (n=11) also stated that
communities were unaware of the rules during the early adoption. Two participants elaborated
that this occurred because formal rules had not yet been established during the early adoption
of CF. The development of these rules was an iterative process that came from the early
international donor-funded trial projects.

Participants also identified that the drivers in the learning cluster and the two individual drivers
(“champions pushing for the adoption” and “the degree to which communities know CF rules,
procedures and benefits”) have changed over time. While champions were vital for the early
adoption of CF, one participant said that they have been less influential during widespread
adoption. Instead, some of these champions have pushed for their own agendas and contributed
to issues of elite capture (n=5). One participant summarized it most effectively below by saying:

“[Leaders] were beneficial in the early stages of getting engagement in a lot of

communities. But at the same time, in some cases they also wanted their brand

29
 or model of CF to be adopted and often didn’t want a more participatory and
devolved approach. They both facilitated and hindered [adoption]."

Another participant said that during the widespread adoption of CF, issues of access and benefit-
sharing emerged with the exclusion of women, marginalised communities and the poor from
economic, social and environmental benefits. Communities may not have known the rules,
procedures and benefits during the early adoption of CF, but learning them became essential
during the scaling of CF for communities to be aware of and take advantage of their rights (n=5).
Participants said that following early adoption, the nodes belonging to the learning cluster were
especially crucial for the widespread adoption of CF. In the last few decades, there has been
extensive work done by international agencies and local organisations to provide opportunities
for learning between communities through capacity building and benefit-sharing. The visibility of
practice and results (n=10) was especially important for the second generation of forest users
adopting CF in Nepal because the forest regeneration from the early adopters presented a visual
model of what could happen if a community adopted CF. The proximity between communities of
forest users was also influential for the later adoption of CF because it allowed communities to
exchange ideas and learn from one another (n=4).

In addition, participants mentioned a few drivers that did not appear in Figure 3 but should be
noted. A few participants (n=4) said that tenure security had remained a concern for forest users
since the early adoption of CF because the Nepalese government has retained ownership of the
land. Since communities lack legal ownership over their forests, they are fearful that the
government might take the land back in the future. Two participants also mentioned that
communities did not want to abandon CF, but that the government could revoke community
rights to their forests if these communities were engaged in illegal activities. However, when it
came to abandonment in recent years, participants (n=10) stated that while communities as a
whole have not been abandoning CF, individuals have been abandoning it due to out-migration.
A few participants (n=2) also said that there had been a feminisation of CF, as men go abroad and
leave the women to participate in forest management.

30
DISCUSSION
Conservation has the potential to help mitigate global environmental challenges if a concerted
effort is made by policymakers and conservation practitioners to understand and incorporate the
drivers that influence the adoption of conservation initiatives. Although previous research has
examined some of the drivers from the DOI theory, few studies have applied this framework in
its entirety to the field of conservation (Mascia & Mills, 2018). This study used the DOI theory to
examine CF in Nepal in order to contribute to the broader literature on why conservation
initiatives reach scale. The results of this study revealed that drivers belonging to the innovation
and context characteristics of the DOI theory were influential for the adoption of CF in Nepal. In
addition, this study identified the temporal variation in the importance of drivers over time
between the early and widespread adoption of CF, which had not been previously identified in
Roger’s (2003) DOI theory (Lyytinen & Damsgaard, 2001; Lawrence, 2007). Three key themes for
adoption notably emerged from the results of this study: the influence of international support,
the influence of relative advantage, and the influence of learning. These themes are not only
relevant for the adoption of CF in Nepal but can also provide insights for the adoption of current
and future conservation initiatives.

Influence of International Support

International extension support, specifically through donor financed interventions, facilitated the
early policy development and adoption of community forestry in Nepal. Although extension
support is not explicitly recognised in the DOI theory, later work by Pannell et al. (2006) underpins
the importance of extension support for adoption (Roger, 2003). In addition, donor-funded
projects have a higher chance of success as compared to community-funded projects due to the
constant flow of funds that donors can provide (Wanje & Nyiro, 2017). Lund & Bluwstein (2018)
identified that much like Nepal, the early adoption of community-based forest management and
joint forest management in Tanzania relied on a great deal of donor financing to overturn
bureaucratic resistance. However, like Tanzania, donor interests in Nepal have not always been
compatible with community interests (ibid).

31
During the early adoption of CF in Nepal, lack of coordination between donors led to the
inefficient use of resources and the assumption of homogeneity that constrained location-
specific adoption (Maharjan, 2005; The Word Bank - OED, 2001). Misalignment of agendas and
actors at different scales of adoption often undermines local interests in community-based
natural resource management (CBNRM) (Measham, 2013). Donors can be well-intentioned with
their assistance on programs but may lack understanding of local contexts and interests
(Shackleton et al., 2002). This lack of understanding from donors can lead to adverse effects on
people’s livelihoods, especially for the poor and marginalised, such as in the case of CF in Nepal
(ibid). Thus, it is beneficial to involve donors in every phase of development for an initiative to
tailor policies that are adaptable to different contexts and needs within each community (Lauber
et al., 2008; Friedman et al., 2020).

This study found that adoption was not only contingent on the alignment of international donor
and community interests, but also on the continued monetary and developmental support given
by these donors. Therefore, the sustainability of CF in Nepal is threatened in part due to shifts in
donor attention away from CF to fund other agendas (Pandey & Paudyall, 2015; Gilmour, 2016).
For example, the introduction of The United Nations Programme on Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Nepal has conflicted with CF structures by threatening
community-level decision-making and overlooking traditional rights to forest access and use
(Poudel et al., 2014; Gilmour, 2016). CBNRM programs in Tanzania, Mozambique, Laos and
Vietnam have also faced similar issues with shifting donor attention, resulting in these programs
suffering from resource constraints (Scheba & Mustalahti, 2015; Lund & Bluwstein, 2018). Pathak
(2020) says that donors in Nepal have shifted funding away from CF to focus on climate change
issues because CF is not commonly viewed as a viable means for tackling climate change.
However, CF can help fulfil 15 of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)s and
directly contributes to the fulfilment of SDG 15.2, which promotes sustainable forest
management (Pathak, 2020; Gilmour, 2016). Taking this into consideration, donors should
therefore focus on leveraging the existing institution of CF through institutional capacity building
(Pathak, 2020). This is supported by Scheba and Mustalahti (2015), who postulate that

32
international donors would benefit from investing in strengthening existing programs rather than
in new unsustainable programs.

Influence of Relative Advantage

Without the support of donor funding, CF suffers in securing benefits for communities. The
results of this study are supported by the DOI theory, which says that relative advantage
(economic, social and environmental benefits/costs) is particularly important for the adoption of
an innovation (Rogers, 2003). Wanje & Nyiro (2017) state that communities rely on tangible
benefits to adopt an initiative. In Nepal, communities adopted CF during its early adoption
because they relied heavily on forests for their livelihoods and subsistence needs. During this
early adoption, communities were unable to obtain considerable economic benefits from forest
products, such as timber. Instead, they received benefits from non-timber forest products, such
as fuelwood and fodder, which regenerated quickly but only met their subsistence needs
(Thwaites et al., 2017). It was not until the widespread adoption of CF that communities were
able to obtain economic, social and environmental benefits beyond their subsistence needs, and
began adopting CF based on these perceived benefits. Although a majority of participants
identified economic benefits as being most influential, a study of community-based conservation
in Latin America shows that economic benefits are only the most influential in garnering short
term engagement (Ruiz-Mallén et al., 2015). Instead, social benefits are vital for maintaining
conservation initiatives (ibid). For CF in Nepal, communities are mandated to utilise a portion of
their funds for the social betterment of the community through the building of schools, roads,
and drinking water systems (Ojha et al., 2009). In Kenya, similar mandates support social benefits
for the community through funds obtained from CBNRM programs, such as paying school fees
for the disadvantaged (Wanje & Nyiro, 2017). Gilmour (2016) recognises that benefits for CF are
closely linked to equity, and Brooks et al. (2012) say that the equitable distribution of benefits is
vital for ensuring community participation in conservation initiatives.

However, the results of this study found that the benefits of CF in Nepal are not equitably
distributed. CF imposes further economic hardships for the poor and marginalised who have no

33
alternative means than the forest for their livelihoods because they are often reluctant to
participate in CF management due to social barriers, such as caste (Gurung et al., 2013; Thoms,
2008). National policies for CBNRM are often unable to match the values and meet the diverse
needs of communities, effectively creating inequity (Roka, 2019). Elites have the potential to help
equitable distribution of benefits for CBNRM if they prioritise the whole of the community’s
interests (Friedman et al., 2020). Gauli and Hauser (2009) suggest that these elites can help the
marginalised and poor through the formation of subgroups that increase the capacity of their
decision-making. In addition, although CF has created a gender quota that promotes equitable
participation from women, these women are still unable to voice their opinions and actively
engage in decision-making (Buchy & Subba, 2003; Boyer-Rechlin, 2010). Creating a gender quota
does not address the underlying issues of inequality and fails to benefit from women’s unique
knowledge and positive impact on conservation (Mangubhai, 2019; Gilmour, 2016). Halpern et
al. (2013) emphasise the importance of addressing equity issues during conservation planning,
to prevent suboptimal outcomes and ensure the effective prioritisation and sustainability of the
initiative (ibid).

In addition to equity issues, CF has inadequately provided viable economic benefits, particularly
for those who have limited livelihood options. When CBNRM fails to provide these economic
incentives, there is a chance that communities will engage in illegal activities, such as poaching
and illegal logging (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). For CF, tenure security can hinder the
motivations of communities to participate (Baynes et al., 2015). Even though CBNRM programs
are designed to give communities ownership over their natural resources, in practice, countries
have not taken the legislative steps to transfer land to communities (Roka, 2019). Since
communities do not have ownership or strong tenure over their forests, the Nepalese
government can impose taxes on the revenues from sales of forest products or make policy
amendments that undermine CF management (Dahal & Chapagain, 2008; Dahal et al., 2017).
Thus, governments need to adapt CF to allow for the commercialisation of forest products to
provide communities with economic incentives to adopt (Gauli & Hauser, 2011; Gilmour, 2016).
Pathak (2020) says that ownership is vital for providing economic benefits to incentivise

34
community members to stay in their communities instead of migrating to cities or abroad.
Establishing policies that support the commercialisation of forests by communities has become
a critical issue during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced migrant labourers back to Nepal
(Gilmour, 2016). Commercialisation is essential for developing economic incentives for migrant
labourers to stay in their villages after the pandemic and continue supporting CF development
(ibid). Otherwise, international migration could weaken CF management institutions, which
could contribute to a decrease in conservation gains (Oldekop et al., 2018). Wanje & Nyiro (2017)
present an example of fully devolved rights to communities in Kenya, where members can create
ways to raise funds and sustain their projects, even without donor support. This type of model
could be applied in Nepal to support communities and bring back migrants. Policies that support
complete devolution through strong tenure rights to communities are essential for participatory
forest management to work beyond individual cases (Lawrence, 2007).

Influence of Learning
Similar to relative advantage, this study found learning to be influential for the widespread
adoption of CF in Nepal. The importance of proximity, facilitated learning programs, and visibility
of practice are recognised within the DOI theory as critical for learning (Rogers, 2003; Wejnert,
2002). Communities are influenced to participate in CF programs based on the proximity to their
forests (Friedman et al., 2020). In addition, learning can be a means through which community
members can gain empowerment (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). Hence, capacity building
provides technical knowledge and support for communities to manage their resources effectively
(Wanje, 2002). These technical and managerial skills are important for the everyday management
and commercialisation of CF (Gilmour, 2016). Specifically, for CF in Nepal, civic education can
increase access to resources and participation in decision-making. This civic education is essential
for women, who have lower rates of literacy than men and as a result lack the confidence to
actively participate in CF (Boyer-Rechlin, 2010). CFUGs have systems of public auditing and
hearings that foster internal and external communication flows, which help communities
understand how to effectively manage their resources (Bhattarai, 2011). However, there is a gap
in the legal awareness in communities adopting CF due to bureaucratic practices within the local

35
and federal government (Pathak, 2020). Therefore, it is critical for all levels of governments to
tailor conservation initiatives to build social capital that allows communities to understand
management rules (Roka, 2019).

However, changes in Nepal’s governance and policies have served to undermine the progress
made through capacity building and learning. In 2015, Nepal’s new constitution shifted the
country’s governance structure to a federal democratic republic organised by three levels of
government: federal, state, and local (Central Intelligence Agency, 2020). This has resulted in a
total of 753 local governments who have differing agendas, interests, and policies (Pathak, 2020).
In the last half-decade, local governments have demanded that more power be relinquished to
them from the federal and state level (ibid). Although FECOFUN has been trying to
counterbalance federal and state interests, techno-bureaucratic processes often compromise a
community’s ability to gain empowerment through capacity building (IRIN, 2012; Gilmour, 2016).
These bureaucratic practices are similar to those in Australia and Kenya for CBNRM, where
community empowerment has been compromised by a higher-level authority overseeing
projects and withholding the funds from local communities (Measham & Lumbasi, 2013). It is
vital for local governments to retain more rights so that they can implement policies specific for
local contexts and encourage capacity building (Pathak, 2020; Gilmour, 2016). Measham &
Lumbasi’s (2013) illustration in Kenya shows that the federal government’s devolution of power
to lower scales of government helped to engage local communities in learning and resulted in
the continuation of its CBNRM program.

Limitations
Although this study met its aims by identifying the key drivers for the adoption of CF in Nepal and
assessing how these drivers changed over time, there are a few limitations that should be noted.
Participants were not presented with the interview guide before the interview and therefore, did
not have a chance to exhaustively synthesise the influence of each driver or its subsequent links.
This gave every participant an equal amount of time to deliberate on the interview questions.
However, this may have resulted in a trade-off in the depth of the results. In addition, the COVID-

36
19 pandemic resulted in an inability to conduct field-based research projects. Thus, interviews
were contingent on each participant’s internet connection. If participants were unable to solely
access a room with a secure internet connection, they were constrained to take part in the
interview from a shared space. This meant that external factors could have influenced participant
answers. In order to help mitigate this, participants were encouraged to use headphones if they
had access to them. Since the majority of participants were not native English speakers, and the
interviews were conducted in English, there were instances where drivers needed to be explained
and presented along with examples. This may have presented certain biases because it could
have prompted the participant to think a certain way about a driver (Squires, 2008). In addition,
presenting participants with drivers also created bias because it may have limited the scope of
participants' initial thoughts on adoption. If they had not initially been presented with these
drivers, they might have developed another approach to answering the interview questions.
Another bias could have resulted from time constraint issues whereby participants may have
provided answers before giving themselves sufficient time to think about each question.

Future Research
Future research should focus on the drivers mentioned by the majority of participants as most
influential, but for which literature is currently limited. For example, the presence of champions
was identified by more than half of the participants as being most influential for the adoption of
CF. However, the scientific literature on the role of champions in CF is limited. It would also be
pertinent to examine equity further using the DOI theory, to understand if the spread of
conservation initiatives serves to exacerbate inequity. Additionally, one of the most interesting
findings was the impact of globalisation on CF, which has resulted in out-migration and
abandonment. It is important to look at how to sustain adoption and maintain people’s
relationships with forests to meet shifting priorities and needs within communities. This could
also link to further research into how the effects of COVID-19 have changed the importance of
these most influential drivers for adoption as migrant workers have returned back to their
villages.

37
If this study were to be replicated, a more diverse pool of participants would need to be
interviewed. Due to time constraints and limitations from COVID-19, less than one-fourth of
participants were female. For future studies, it would be interesting to see how a balance in
representation across sectors and genders would influence the results. It would also be
interesting to interview experts who do not speak English or do not have access to the internet.
This study could also be expanded to include participants who belong to CFUGs and were present
during their community’s adoption of CF. This would provide forest user perspectives on what
drove their desire to adopt CF, which might differ from the opinions of the experts who facilitated
the adoption process.

This study could be reproduced on a broader scale by taking its methods and framework and
applying it to other conservation initiatives. Going beyond the case study of Nepal would be
beneficial in comparing how the most influential drivers from the DOI framework vary when
applied to different contexts. Additionally, quantitative studies applying the DOI framework to
conservation initiatives should also be undertaken. For the sake of resource management, it
would also be interesting to not only look at adoption but examine the link between adoption
and management of conservation initiatives in order to further understand how initiatives are
sustained over time.

38
CONCLUSION
Understanding what drives the adoption of conservation initiatives is essential for policymakers
and conservation practitioners to implement initiatives that are effective in tackling
environmental challenges. This research used the DOI theory to identify the drivers that
contributed to the adoption of CF in Nepal. This study is important because it is the first to look
at the adoption of CF in Nepal using a defined framework and helps to fill a research gap on why
conservation initiatives reach scale. There were two key findings from this study: 1) the drivers
associated with the innovation and adopter characteristics of the DOI theory have been the most
influential for the early and widespread adoption of CF in Nepal and 2) the most influential drivers
from the DOI theory have changed from the early to widespread adoption of CF in Nepal. The
three themes that emerged from this study, the influence of international support, the influence
of relative advantage and the influence of learning, further emphasised the need for conservation
to remain dynamic and adaptable to different contexts. In order for international support to be
beneficial for local contexts and needs, donor involvement is needed in every phase of
development and needs to continue past early adoption. In addition, equity needs to be
addressed during conservation planning in order to ensure that benefits are equitably
distributed. Federal governments can fulfil local interests by supporting strong tenure and
devolving power to lower scales of government. Although these three themes are specific to CF
in Nepal, the insight gained through this study can be used in future work to examine other
conservation initiatives. Ultimately, using the DOI theory to examine the adoption of other
conservation initiatives would help build a comprehensive understanding of what drives the
success and failure of conservation initiatives.

39
REFERENCES

Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. & Lovett, J.C. (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency:
evidence from common property forest management in Nepal. Ecological economics, 48 (2), 245-
257. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.08.008

Adhikari, M., Nagata, S. & Adhikari, M. (2004) Rural household and forest: an evaluation of
household’s dependency on community forest in Nepal. Journal of Forest Research. 9 (1), 33-44.
Available from: doi:10.1007/s10310-003-0051-1

Atlas.ti (2019) ATLAS.ti (Version 8.4.4) [Software]

Baynes, J., Herbohn, J., Smith, C., Fisher, R. & Bray, D. (2015) Key factors which influence the
success of community forestry in developing countries. Global Environmental Change, 35, 226-
238. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.011

Bhattarai, R.C. (2011) Economic impact of community forestry in Nepal: a case of mid-hill districts
of Nepal. Economic Journal of Development Issues, 75-96. Available from:
doi:10.3126/ejdi.v13i0.7212

Bluffstone, R. (2018) Collective action yields positive outcomes for Nepal’s forests. World Bank.
Available from: https://bit.ly/2YY1YGz [Accessed 26th July 2020].

Boyer-Rechlin, B. (2010) Women in forestry: a study of Kenya's green belt movement and Nepal's
community forestry program. Scandinavian journal of forest research, 25, 69-72. Available from:
doi:10.1080/02827581.2010.506768

Brooks, J.S., Waylen, K.A. & Mulder, M.B. (2012) How national context, project design, and local
community characteristics influence success in community-based conservation projects.

40
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (52), 21265-21270. Available from:
doi:10.1073/pnas.1207141110

Buchy, M. & Subba, S. (2003) Why is Community Forestry a Social and Gender-blind Technology?
The Case of Nepal. Gender, Technology and Development, 7 (3), 313-332. Available from:
doi:10.1080/09718524.2003.11910091

Chen, H.T. (2012) Theory-driven evaluation: Conceptual framework, application and

advancement. In: Evaluation von Programmen und Projekten für eine demokratische Kultur.
Springer VS, Wiesbaden, pp. 17-40. Available from: doi:10.1007/978-3-531-19009-9_2

Chhetri, B.B.K., Johnsen, F.H., Konoshima, M. & Yoshimoto, A. (2013) Community forestry in the
hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest management. Forest Policy and
Economics, 30, 6-13. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.01.010

Central Intelligence Agency. (2020) Nepal. Available from: https://bit.ly/3ifsyTg [Accessed 21st
August 2020].

Dahal, G. R. & Chapagain A. (2008) Community forestry in Nepal: Decentralized forest

Governance. In: Colfer, C. P. J., Dahal, G. R. & Capistrano, D. (eds.) Lessons from forest
decentralization: money, justice and the quest for good governance in Asia-Pacific. Earthscan
Publications, 65-79.

Dahal, G.R., Pokharel, B.K. & Pokhrel, P.R. (2017) Why does tenure security matter in community
forestry? A critical reflection from Nepal. Journal of Forest and Livelihood, 15 (1), 15-26. Available
from: doi:10.3126/jfl.v15i1.23082

Dasgupta, S. (30 March 2016) 5 reasons why many conservation efforts fail. Mongabay. Available
from: https://bit.ly/35eXoI3 [Accessed 1st August 2020].

41
Dovers, S. and Butler, C. (2017) Population and environment: a global challenge. Australian
Academy of Science. Available from: https://bit.ly/359zai3 [Accessed 13th June 2020].

Eckholm, E. (1976) Losing ground. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development,
18 (3), 6-11. Available from: doi:10.1080/00139157.1976.9930747

FECOFUN. (2020) The Federation of community Forestry Users Nepal. FECOFUN. Available from:
http://fecofun.org.np/ [Accessed 8th June 2020].

Forgie, V., Horsley, P. G. & Johnston, J. E. (2001) Facilitating community-based conservation

initiatives. Wallington, New Zealand: Department of Conservation.

Friedman, R.S., Rhodes, J.R., Dean, A.J., Law, E.A., Santika, T., Budiharta, S., Hutabarat, J.A.,
Indrawan, T.P., Kusworo, A., Meijaard, E. & St John, F.A. (2020) Analyzing procedural equity in
government-led community-based forest management. Ecology and Society. Available from:
doi:10.5751/ES-11710-250316

Game, E.T., Tallis, H., Olander, L., Alexander, S.M., Busch, J., Cartwright, N., Kalies, E.L., Masuda,
Y.J., Mupepele, A.C., Qiu, J. & Rooney, A. (2018) Cross-discipline evidence principles for
sustainability policy. Nature sustainability, 1 (9), 452-454. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.028

Gauli, K. & Hauser, M. (2009) Pro-poor commercial management of non-timber forest products
in Nepal's community forest user groups: factors for success. Mountain Research and
Development, 29 (4), 298-307. Available from: doi:10.1659/mrd.00051

42
Gauli, K. & Hauser, M. (2011) Commercial management of non-timber forest products in Nepal's
community forest users groups: who benefits?. International Forestry Review, 13 (1), 35-45.
Available from: doi:10.1505/ifor.13.1.35

Gilmour, D. (2003) Retrospective and prospective view of community forestry in Nepal. Journal
of Forest and Livelihood, 2 (2), 5-7. Available from: https://bit.ly/3heggZM [Accessed 20th June
2020].

Gilmour, D. (2016) Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and
effectiveness. FAO.

Gurung, A., Bista, R., Karki, R., Shrestha, S., Uprety, D. & Oh, S.E. (2013) Community-based forest
management and its role in improving forest conditions in Nepal. Small-scale forestry, 12 (3), 377-
388. Available from: doi:10.1007/s11842-012-9217-z

Halpern, B.S., Klein, C.J., Brown, C.J., Beger, M., Grantham, H.S., Mangubhai, S., Ruckelshaus, M.,
Tulloch, V.J., Watts, M., White, C. and Possingham, H.P. (2013) Achieving the triple bottom line
in the face of inherent trade-offs among social equity, economic return, and conservation.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110 (15), 6229-6234. Available from:
doi:10.1073/pnas.1217689110

Hang, C. (13 December 2017) Community forestry pays off for Nepal. Forest News. Available
from: https://bit.ly/3gV363K [Accessed 16th May 2020].

Hay, I. (2000) Qualitative research methods in human geography.

IRIN. (2012) Community forest value untapped. Available from: https://bit.ly/3gQn9jS [Accessed
3rd June 2020].

43
Jagadish, A., Mills, M. & Mascia, M.B. In prep. Operationalizing diffusion of innovations theory in
conservation science and practice.

Keller, S. & Conradin, K. (2010) Semi-structured interviews. Available from:

https://bit.ly/2GyQZNg [Accessed 30 June 2020].

Lauber, T.B., Decker, D.J. & Knuth, B.A. (2008) Social networks and community-based natural
resource management. Environmental management, 42 (4), 677-687. Available from:
doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9181-8

Lawrence, A. (2007) Beyond the second generation: towards adaptiveness in participatory forest
management. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural
resources, 2 (28), 1-15. Available from: doi:10.1079/PAVSNNR20072028

Lewark, S., George, L. & Karmann, M. (2011) Study of gender equality in community based forest
certification programmes in Nepal. International Forestry Review, 13 (2), 195-204. Available from:
doi: 10.2307/24310668

Lucid Software Inc. (n.d.) lucidchart.com. Available from: https://lucidchart.com [Accessed 9th
May 2020]

Lund, J.F. & Bluwstein, J. (2018) When conservation research goes awry: A reply to Mascia and
Mills (2018). Conservation Letters, 11 (3). Available from: doi:10.1111/conl.12461

Luintel, H., Bluffstone, R.A. & Scheller, R.M. (2018) The effects of the Nepal community forestry
program on biodiversity conservation and carbon storage. PloS one, 13 (6). Available from:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199526

44
Lyytinen, K. & Damsgaard, J. (2001) What’s wrong with the diffusion of innovation theory?. In
Working conference on diffusing software product and process innovations (pp. 173-190).
Springer, Boston, MA. Available from: doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35404-0_11

Maharjan, K.L. (2005) Community participation in forest resource management in Nepal. Journal
of Mountain Science, 2 (1), 32-41. Available from: doi:10.1007/s11629-005-0032-2

Mangubhai, Sangeeta. (2019) Promoting Gender Equity and Social Inclusion in Fisheries. Available
from: https://bit.ly/3hZseaX [Accessed 22nd August 2020].

Mascia, M. B. & Mills, M. (2018) When conservation goes viral: The diffusion of innovative
biodiversity conservation policies and practices. Conservation Letters, 11 (3). Available from:
doi:doi:10.1111/conl.12461

McDougall, C., Jiggins, J., Pandit, B.H., Thapa Magar Rana, S.K. & Leeuwis, C. (2013) Does adaptive
collaborative forest governance affect poverty? Participatory action research in Nepal's
community forests. Society & Natural Resources, 26 (11), 1235-1251. Available from:
doi:10.1080/08941920.2013.779344

Measham, T.G. & Lumbasi, J.A. (2013) Success factors for community-based natural resource
management (CBNRM): Lessons from Kenya and Australia. Environmental management, 52 (3),
649-659. Available from: doi:10.1007/s00267-013-0114-9

Ojha, H., Persha, L. & Chhatre, A. (2009) Community forestry in Nepal: A Policy Innovation for
Local Livelihoods. Proven Successes in Agricultural Development, 123. Available from:
https://bit.ly/33cgCuS [Accessed 1st August 2020].

45
Oldekop, J.A., Sims, K.R., Whittingham, M.J. & Agrawal, A. (2018) An upside to globalization:
International outmigration drives reforestation in Nepal. Global Environmental Change, 52, 66-
74. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.06.004

Otter.ai (2020) Otter.ai. Available from: https://www.otter.ai [Accessed 16th July 2020]

Pandey, G.S. & Paudyall, B.R. (2015) Protecting forests, improving livelihoods–Community
forestry in Nepal. Nepal, FERN.

Pandit, R. & Bevilacqua, E. (2011) Social heterogeneity and community forestry processes:
reflections from forest users of Dhading District, Nepal. Small-scale forestry, 10 (1), 97-113.
Available from: doi:10.1007/s11842-010-9136-9

Pannell, D.J., Marshall, G.R., Barr, N., Curtis, A., Vanclay, F. & Wilkinson, R. (2006) Understanding
and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian journal of
experimental agriculture, 46 (11), 1407-1424. Available from: doi:10.1071/EA05037

Pathak, Bharati. (2020) Telephone conversation with Bharati Pathak, 18th August.

Pokharel, R. K. (2012) Factors influencing the management regime of Nepal's community

forestry. Forest Policy and Economics, 17, 13-17. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2011.08.002

Poudel, M., Thwaites, R., Race, D. & Dahal, G.R. (2014) REDD+ and community forestry:
implications for local communities and forest management-a case study from Nepal.
International Forestry Review, 16 (1), 39-54. Available from: doi:10.1505/146554814811031251

46
Rai, R., Neupane, P. & Dhakal, A. (2016) Is the contribution of community forest users financially
efficient? A household level benefit-cost analysis of community forest management in Nepal.
International Journal of the Commons, 10 (1). Available from: doi:10.18352/IJC.594

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Roka, K. (2019) Community-Based Natural Resources Management. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A.,
Brandli L., Özuyar P., Wall T. (eds) Life on Land. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development
Goals. Springer, Cham. Available from: doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71065-5_18-1

Romero, C. In prep. The adoption and spread of Wildlife Management Units in Mexico.

Ruiz-Mallén, I., Schunko, C., Corbera, E., Rös, M. & Reyes-García, V. (2015) Meanings, drivers, and
motivations for community-based conservation in Latin America. Ecology and Society, 20 (3).
Available from: doi:10.5751/ES-07733-200333

Sapkota, L.M., Dhungana, H., Poudyal, B.H., Chapagain, B. & Gritten, D. (2020) Understanding the
barriers to community forestry delivering on its potential: An illustration from two
heterogeneous districts in Nepal. Environmental Management, 1-15. Available from:
doi:10.1007/s00267-019-01224-0

Sapkota, P., Keenan, R.J. & Ojha, H.R. (2018) Community institutions, social marginalization and
the adaptive capacity: a case study of a community forestry user group in the Nepal Himalayas.
Forest Policy and Economics, 92, 55-64. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.04.001

Scriven, M. (2008) A summative evaluation of RCT methodology: An alternative approach to

causal research. Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation, 5 (9), 11-24. Available from:
https://bit.ly/35gARKF [Accessed 5th August 2020].

47
Shackleton, S., Campbell, B., Wollenberg, E. & Edmunds, D. (2002) Devolution and community-
based natural resource management: Creating space for local people to participate and benefit.
Natural resource perspectives, 76 (1), 1-6. Available from: https://bit.ly/2FdPEem [Accessed 15th
July 2020].

Scheba, A. & Mustalahti, I. (2015) Rethinking ‘expert’ knowledge in community forest

management in Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics, 60, 7-18. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2014.12.007

Sharma, G. (2017) Pros and cons of different sampling techniques. International journal of applied
research, 3 (7), 749-752. Available from: https://bit.ly/327Cvwa [Accessed 20th August 2020].

Sirimorok, N. & Rusdianto, E. (2020) Conditions for Success in a Community Based Conservation
Initiative: An Analysis of Triggering Moments and Catalytic Elements in Nuha. Forest and Society,
4 (1), 127-141. Available from: doi:10.24259/fs.v4i1.8184

Squires, A. (2009) Methodological challenges in cross-language qualitative research: A research

review. International journal of nursing studies, 46 (2), 277-287. Available from:
doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.08.006

Tallis, H., Kreis, K., Olander, L., Ringler, C., Ameyaw, D., Borsuk, M.E., Fletschner, D., Game, E.,
Gilligan, D.O., Jeuland, M. & Kennedy, G. (2019) Aligning evidence generation and use across
health, development, and environment. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39, 81-
93. Available from: doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2019.09.004

Taplin, D.H. & Clark, H. (2012) Theory of change basics: A primer on theory of change. New York:
Actknowledge. Available from: https://bit.ly/2RcRApT [Accessed 1st June 2020].

48
Thoms, C.A. (2008) Community control of resources and the challenge of improving local
livelihoods: A critical examination of community forestry in Nepal. Geoforum, 39 (3), 1452-1465.
Available from: doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2008.01.006

Thwaites, R., Fisher, R. & Poudel, M. eds. (2017) Community forestry in Nepal: adapting to a
changing world. Routledge.

Tsui, J. & Lucas, B. (2013) Methodologies for measuring influence. GSDRC Applied Knowledge
Services prepared for DFID. UK, London. Available from: https://bit.ly/3iaijQ5 [Accessed 3rd June
2020].

Wanje, N. & Nyiro, A.M (2017) Drivers of success for community based natural resource projects
in Coast Region of Kenya. International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, 3
(5), 128-138. Available from: doi:10.19080/IJESNR.2017.03.555624

Wejnert, B. (2002) Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework.

Annual review of sociology, 28 (1), 297-326. Available from:
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141051

White, H. & Phillips, D. (2012) Addressing attribution of cause and effect in small n impact
evaluations: towards an integrated framework. International Initiative for Impact Evaluation,
New Delhi. Available from: doi:10.23846/WP0015

The World Bank. (2020) Population, total - Nepal. Available from: https://bit.ly/2Dpo6BZ
[Accessed 1st August 2020].

The Word Bank - OED. (2001) Community Forestry in Nepal. Available from:
https://bit.ly/2EXPjMO [Accessed 30th July 2020].

49
APPENDICES

Appendix A: Diffusion of Innovation Framework

Component Attribute Definition Driver Relation to Definition Indicator/Metric

increased
chance of
adoption

Innovation Relative The ratio of the Relative economic Positive Net economic benefit as Income
Advantage - expected benefits and benefits (Rogers, perceived by the
Perceived the costs of adoption 2003) adopter - e.g. including
(Rogers, 2003) of an innovation. consideration of costs
(Rogers, 2003) and benefits over the
long-term. (Pannell et
al., 2006)

Relative social Positive Social benefits as Food, health, and

benefits perceived by the tenure security
adopter. Examples
include food security,
health security, and
tenure security.

Relative gain of Positive Gain in social prestige Increase in

social prestige and political membership in
(Rogers, 2003) empowerment as a groups, everyday
result of adoption of sociability,
the innovation. (Rogers, community
2003) participation,
social prestige,
neighbourhood
activities, trust
and fairness
norms

Relative Positive Ecological benefits as Improvement in

environmental perceived by the resource base,
benefits (Pannell adopter, includes other ecological
et al., 2006) improvements to the conditions
resource base and
improved
environmental
conditions.

Perceived risks Negative Degree of uncertainty

(Pannell et al., around adoption
2006) outcomes or
unintended
consequences.

Initial costs Negative Relate to monetary and Financial and

(Rogers, 2003) nonmonetary direct or social costs (or
indirect costs, or risks uncertainty)
associated with the
adoption of an
innovation. (Wejnert,
2002)

50
 Immediacy of Positive Realizing the benefits of
reward (Rogers, innovation adoption
2003) soon after adoption.

Compatibility The degree to which Compatibility with Positive An innovation that is

(Rogers, 2003) the practice is values and beliefs compatible with deeply
perceived as (Rogers, 2003) embedded cultural
consistent with values and beliefs.
existing values, (Rogers, 2003)
existing actions, past
experiences, and Compatibility with Positive Previous experience
needs of potential previously with adopted ideas
adopters. (Rogers, introduced ideas provides a standard
2003) (Rogers, 2003) against which an
innovation can be
interpreted, thus
decreasing uncertainty.
(Rogers, 2003)

Compatibility with Positive Degree to which an

needs (Rogers, innovation is perceived
2003) as meeting the needs of
the adopters. (Rogers,
2003)

Compatibility with Positive Degree to which an

current practices innovation is
compatible with the
current practices
followed by the
adopter.

Complexity The degree to which Ease of Positive The degree to which the
(Rogers, 2003) the practice is understanding innovation is perceived
perceived as relatively and use (Rogers, as relatively easy to
difficult to understand 2003) understand and use.
and use. (Rogers, (Rogers, 2003)
2003)

Trialability The degree to which Ability to Positive The degree to which the
(Rogers, 2003) the practice may be test/Ability to practice may be
experimented with on partially experimented on a
a limited basis. implement partial basis. (Rogers,
(Rogers, 2003) practice before 2003)
full adoption
(Rogers, 2003;
Pannell et al.,
2006)

Reversible/Ability Positive The greater the degree

to reject adoption to which the
and go back to conservation action can
status quo be abandoned, and the
adopter can go back to
a prior status.

Observability The degree to which Visibility of Positive The degree to which the
(Rogers, 2003) the practice and the practice and results of the
results of that practice results (Rogers, innovation are
are visible (observable 2003) observable by others.
or communicated) to (Rogers, 2003)
others. (Rogers, 2003)

51
 Flexibility The ability to Ability to modify Positive The degree to which the
(Greenhalgh transform the practice to suit adopter/s adopters can tailor the
et al., 2004) to something that needs conservation action to
aligns with the (Greenhalgh et their needs.
adopter desires and al., 2004) (Greenhalgh et al.,
constraints. 2004; Pannell et al.,
(Greenhalgh et al., 2006)
2004)

Adopter/lan Social- Social-economic Economic well- Positive The resources people Livelihood
ding site economic characteristics that being of the use to meet basic source,
(Rogers, 2003) influence adopter's [adopters] consumption and household
ability to learn or (Wejnert, 2002; material needs and assets, wealth
implement a new Ryan & Fross, access other sources of proxies for the
practice. 1943) well-being. (Sen, 1999) community

Education of the Positive The structures, systems, School

[adopters] and practices - formal enrolment,
(Wejnert, 2002; and informal - used to informal
Ryan & Fross, transfer knowledge and knowledge
1943) skills in a society. systems
(Stephanson & Mascia,
2009)

Personality Personality traits that Cosmopolitanism/ Positive

(Rogers, 2003) influence an adopter's [adopters]
willingness to learn openness to new
and implement new ideas and
practices. practices
(Wejnert, 2002;
Ryan & Fross,
1943)

Competition Positive The degree to which For resources,

amongst units within a system funds, ties to
[adopters] compete for resources, external
(Rogers, 2003) funds, ties to external organizations,
agents, status. (Burt, status
1992; Wejnert, 2002)

Knowledge (Rogers, 2003) Familiarity with Positive The familiarity Knowledge of the
(Rogers, 2003) the [initiative] associated with the innovation and
(Wejnert, 2002) innovation relates to its use
how radical it is.
(Rogers, 2003)

Organizational Innovativeness is Few leaders in the Positive Degree to which power

innovativenes related to leader adopter group and control in a system
s - relative characteristics, (Rogers, 2003) are concentrated in the
only if adopter internal organizational hands of a relatively
is a structural few individuals. (Rogers,
group/organiz characteristics, and 2003)
ation (Rogers, external
2003) characteristics of the Adequate skills, Positive Degree to which an
group/ organization. knowledge and organization's members
(Rogers, 2003) expertise (Rogers, possess relatively high
2003) level of knowledge and
expertise, usually
measured by the
members' range of
occupational
specialities and degree
of professionalism.
(Rogers, 2003)

52
 Formal rules and Positive Degree to which the Formal rules in
procedures in adopter emphasizes its place,
place (Rogers, members' following the enforcement
2003) rules and procedures. system
(Rogers, 2003)

Interconnectedne Positive The degree to which the Structural

ss amongst potential adopters equivalence,
[adopters] interpersonal and interpersonal
(Rogers, 2003) organizational networks networks -
(including social Nonnectedness
density) can increase horizontal and
communication about vertical -
the innovation. (Walker, frequency of
1969) interactions,
number of ties,
centrality
measures -
degree,
closeness,
betweenness
(Wejnert, 2002)

Size of the Negative Size of the organization

[adopter] (Rogers, making the decision to
2003) adopt or reject -
number of people
involved, budget, size of
area served. (Rogers,
2003)

Decision Decision-making Political Positive People's ability to Resource rights,

Making arrangements specify empowerment/A participate in the community
(Rogers, 2003) the rights of bility to decision-making organization,
individuals or groups participate in processes that affect political
to make choices decision-making their lives. (UNDP et al., engagement,
regarding other (Wejnert, 2002; 2005) representation -
aspects of Feder and Umali, elected,
conservation 1993) inherited,
intervention design appointed
and management.
These rules
determine, for
example, who may
participate in making
decisions and who
may not (e.g.,
government officials,
resource users), how
decision makers are
selected for their
positions (e.g., elected
or appointed), and
how decisions are
made (e.g., consensus
or majority vote).
(Glew et al., 2012)

53
Context Geographical Settings that affect Ecological Positive if The degree to which the Types of
setting adoption by conditions compatible ecological ecological
(Wejnert, influencing the (Wejnert, 2002) infrastructures such as systems - area
2002) applicability of the climate, weather, soil, and extent,
innovation to the landscape diversity and
ecological characteristics influence abundance of
infrastructures of the adoption. (Wejnert, species, physical
potential adopter and 2002) attributes,
by exerting spatial climate
effects of geographical
proximity. (Wejnert,
Proximity Positive The degree to which the Relative rate of
2002)
(Wejnert, 2002) geographical setting adoption
(e.g. weather) or between
proximity will influence geographically
the frequency of spaced actors -
communication and frequency of
interaction between communication,
actors or potential nature of
adopters and the interactions
innovation itself.
(Wejnert, 2002)

Culture A broad spectrum of Traditional Negative Associated with social

(Wejnert, variables of societal society (Wejnert, inertia in adopting new
2002) culture is studied in 2002) practices and ideas.
diffusion research— (Wejnert, 2002)
belief systems (values,
norms, language, Similarity Positive if Degree of structural
religion, ideologies), amongst innovation equivalence between
cultural traditionalism, population already transmitters and
cultural homogeneity, (Wejnert, 2002) exists in the potential adopters.
and socialization of system (Wejnert, 2002)
individual actors—as
influencing adoption Opportunities for Positive Mobilization of
of innovations. social learning available societal
(Wejnert, 2002) (Wejnert, 2002) talents of
entrepreneurship,
perseverance,
determination,
marketing skills that
influence adoption
through social learning
processes. (Wejnert,
2002)

Political Character of political National policies Positive if

conditions systems, along with (Wejnert, 2002) compatible
(Wejnert, the regulations and
2002) norms inherent in the Bureaucracies Negative
legal systems that (Wejnert, 2002)
control actors’
behaviours. (Wejnert, Political Positive if Existence of political
2002) conditions compatible freedoms and laws,
(Wejnert, 2002) trust in government.
(Wejnert, 2002)

Extension We define extension Support and Positive Presence of local Number of local
support broadly to include facilitation organizations and organizations,
(Pannell et al., public and private (Pannell et al., extension support to interactions with
2006) sector activities 2006) communicate about community
relating to technology and facilitate
transfer, education, implementation of new
attitude change, ideas and practices.

54
 human resource Presence of Positive A charismatic individual
development, and champions who throws her or his
dissemination and (Rogers, 2003) weight behind an
collection of innovation, thus
information. (Pannell overcoming
et al., 2006) indifference or
resistance that the new
idea may provoke in an
organization. (Rogers,
2003)

Global Variables related to Presence of Positive The spread of rule-like Incentives -

uniformity global uniformity targets, rules and behavioural models Direct or indirect
(Wejnert, reflect the view of the incentives to that are supported by payments of cash
2002) contemporary world promote common recipes and an or in kind that
as one cultural widespread implicit structure of are given to an
community, adoption incentives for the individual/
characterized by (Wejnert, 2002) adoption of approved organization in
collective forms of practices, order to
development programs, or policies. encourage
grounded in a (Wejnert, 2002) behavioural
synchronized, change.
cohesive process of Mandates -
evolution. (Wejnert, Behaviour
2002) change
demanded by a
government/
organization.
(Rogers, 2003)

Presence of Positive Global adoption of

international technological
NGOs and innovations, including
corporations agricultural and
(Wejnert, 2002) industrial practices, that
is facilitated by the
growth of multinational
organizations, as well as
by the generally low
threshold of diffusion of
technological
innovations. (Wejnert,
2002)

Presence of Positive Modern communication

modern systems or media
communication effects. (Wejnert, 2002)
systems like
internet and
access to social
media (Wejnert,
2002)

55
Appendix B: Interview Guide

This interview guide was adapted from Romero (In prep.) for the context of Community Forestry in
Nepal.

[To complete before the interview]

Date/Time of interview:
Participant ID:
Gender:
Location:
Current position:

[Introduction]

Thank you for accepting my invitation and taking the time to participate in this interview.

This interview aims to gather your perspective on the adoption and spread of community forestry in
Nepal. I am interested in both your opinion of and personal experience with community forestry. If you
are more familiar with a specific region, please focus on it while we talk.

I will start the interview asking about your experience with community forestry. Then you will undertake
an online activity in which I will ask you to identify the drivers that have impacted the adoption of
community forestry. For this online activity I will share my screen with you so that we can converse
about the activity while you complete it. Before we finish, you will be given the chance to add anything
else you consider relevant or share any feedback you may have about the interview. I would be grateful
if you could also help us identify other people who have experience with community forestry in Nepal
and who may also be willing to be interviewed.

This interview should last around 1 hour. If you are feeling uncomfortable for any reason, at any point
throughout this interview, please let me know and we can stop the interview or move on to another
question.

56
I am going to ask you a few questions in order to obtain verbal consent so that we can proceed with the
interview:

1. Do you confirm that you have read and understand the participant information sheet dated 30th
June 2020, version 4 for this study and have had the opportunity to ask questions which have
been answered fully?
2. Do you understand that your participation is voluntary, and you are free to withdraw at any
time, without giving any reason?
3. Do you understand that you will not be asked to provide personal information or commercially
confidential or sensitive information?
4. Do you give your permission for the interview to be recorded? If you prefer to not be recorded,
please express so now.
5. Do you understand that anonymised quotations from the interview will be used in publications?
6. Do you consent to take part in this study?

Thank you for confirming consent to take part in this study.

Before we start, do you have any questions?

[Interview]

A. EXPERIENCE

[Experience]

I would like to start by asking a few questions about your experience with community forestry. There is
no right or wrong answer, I am interested in knowing your opinion.

1. Can you tell me about your experience with community forestry so far? [open-ended]

Prompts:

57
 - User vs scientific expert vs government official (role in relation to community forestry)
- Development process, first years, later (period of involvement with community forestry)
- Specific region in Nepal? (mid-hills, terai, etc.) How long?
- What is your present involvement with CF?
[Sorting activity]

B. THEORY OF CHANGE

Next, we will move to the sorting activity, which is designed to determine and understand the drivers
that you consider most important in the adoption and spread of community forestry in Nepal. We define
adoption by the community of forest users as starting the process of adopting community forestry (i.e.
starting the paperwork with the government).

I will send you the Lucidchart link now (through Skype). Please could you share your screen with me?

Once you start the sorting activity, it would be ideal if you could share and narrate your decisions as you
go.

2. Here I have a list of drivers that contain the drivers that may have facilitated or hindered the adoption
of community Forestry in Nepal.

(1) Take a few minutes to separate the drivers into two groups:

- drivers that have facilitated or hindered the adoption of community forestry,

- drivers that have NOT influenced the adoption of community forestry

If you are not sure whether or not a driver has had an influence on adoption of community forestry,
please do not select it. If you are unsure of the meaning of any driver, do not hesitate in letting me know
and I will give you a definition.

58
You can also include new drivers you consider have influenced the adoption of community forestry but
have not been represented here. To do so, write a brief description or label for your driver in the blank
space that follows one of the undetermined drivers ('Driver X', 'Driver Y', 'Driver Z'). Then drag and drop
your new driver into the box of drivers that ‘facilitated or hindered the adoption’ of community forestry.
You can add as many drivers as you like.

(2) Now, focusing only on those drivers you have selected as having ‘facilitated or hindered
adoption’.

Organize your drivers depending on how much they have influenced the spread of
community forestry: from most influential to least influential. Please try and select
somewhere between 10 to 15 drivers.

Now focusing only on the most influential drivers, tell me if these drivers link with or are dependent on
other drivers. Please narrate your rationale throughout this activity.

Prompts:

- What does this driver represent within the context of the spread of community
forestry?
- How do you think this driver might positively or negatively influence the
adoption of community forestry?

[Ask if they want a small break]

3. Do the benefits and costs of adoption that you have identified vary for different communities of forest
users?

4. From your point of view, how long would it take for the expected benefits to be realized by a
community of forest users after community forestry is first adopted? [open-ended]

59
 - Are there certain environments (eg. specific community/certain geographic
area) associated with these benefits? If so, what environments?
- Are these benefits visible? Who is subjected to these benefits? Do these
benefits change over time?
5. From your point of view, how quickly would a community of forest users be subject to the costs
associated to the adoption of community forestry? [open-ended]
Prompts:

- Consider costs that are not monetary as well (social, wellbeing…)

- Are these costs visible? Who is subjected to these costs? Do these costs change
over time?
[Abandonment]
Finally, I will ask you a few questions about the abandonment of community forestry by communities of
forest users. We consider community forestry to be “de facto” abandoned if a CFUG does not have a
management plan approved by the Department of Forests >1 yrs. (i.e. no rules for collection, harvest,
regeneration and allowable cut approved), if it is inactive or completely abandoned. We consider
community forestry to be abandoned “de jure” if its abandonment has been registered in the law.

6. Can you estimate to what extent communities of forest users have abandoned community forestry de
jure or de facto?
Prompts:

(if they can’t give a %, then give them categories (little, half, etc.)

de jure: %

de facto: %

very little/little/half/most/nearly all

7. Why have communities of forest users abandoned community forestry?

60
8. Are there commonalities between the communities of forest users that have abandoned community
forestry?
[END OF THE INTERVIEW]

Thank you so much for your time and for participating. The results of this study will be available to you,
should you wish.

Is there anything else you would like to add? Or would you like to share any feedback you may have
about the interview?

Would it be okay if I contact you again by email with any follow-up questions?

In addition, I would be grateful if you could also help us identify other people who have experience with
community forestry in Nepal, whose perspectives may somehow defer from yours, and with whom we
may also be able to conduct an interview.

Thank you.

Table of factors for part 2 of interview:

DRIVERS EXPLANATION PROMPT

Economic costs/benefits of CF as Net economic benefit as perceived by forest users - Income – time saving, contribution to national
perceived by communities of e.g. including consideration of costs and benefits over economic growth, increased availability/collection
forest users the long-term of forest products, etc.

Social costs/benefits of CF as
perceived by communities of
forest users
Social benefits as perceived by the forest users.
Examples include food security, health security, and
tenure security
Benefits – access to information/ability to voice
concerns, greater public services available
(schools, roads, health posts), better health
care/energy access, development of
microenterprises, time saving

61

Opportunity for communities of
forest users to gain social prestige
and political empowerment as a
result of CF
Environmental costs/benefits of
CF as perceived by communities of
forest users
Perceived risks associated with the
adoption of CF by communities of
forest users
Perceived initial costs of
implementation of CF by
communities of forest users
Speed at which the communities
of forest users obtained benefits
of CF
Compatibility of CF with the values
and beliefs of communities of
forest users
Gain in social prestige and political empowerment as
a result of adoption of the innovation
Ecological benefits as perceived by the forest users,
includes improvements to the resource base and
improved environmental conditions
Degree of uncertainty around adoption outcomes or
unintended consequences
Relate to monetary and nonmonetary direct or
indirect costs, or risks associated with the adoption of
an innovation
Realizing the benefits of innovation adoption soon
after adoption
An innovation that is compatible with deeply
embedded cultural values and beliefs
costs – poaching, taking time away from other
work (eg. farming), have to be on the lookout for
illegal activity
-Increased interaction amongst users
-membership in CFUG is considered a high-status
position
-giving rights/responsibilities to disadvantaged
members
-civic education
-connection to local government -> get to interact
with district forest officers, etc.
-improved biodiversity
-higher carbon storage, soil stabilization, reduced
flood risks
-increased availability of products
-increased water yield, increased wildlife
population
-ownership of forest remains with state (land
tenure)
-lack of security for pro-poor transactions
-risk of being further marginalised by people who
already have power
-higher forest product price, reduce incentives for
poor members to participate
-membership fee
-opportunity cost
-regeneration -> increased volume and security of
forest products
-perceive forest product collection to have
increased and the impact on livelihood
-rewards not received for up to 5 years
-gender and caste influence behaviour
-value agriculture over forest
-primary/secondary users
62
Compatibility of CF with previous
efforts of decentralizing resource
management
Compatibility of CF with
subsistence needs of communities
of forest users
Compatibility of CF with current
forest use
The degree to which communities
of forest users know community
forestry rules, procedures and
benefits
Ability to test CF before full
adoption
Ability to abandon CF and go back
to the status quo
Visibility of practice and results of
CF
Previous experience with adopted ideas provide a
standard against which an innovation can be
interpreted, thus decreasing uncertainty ->
comparability
Degree to which an innovation is perceived as
meeting the needs of the adopters
Degree to which an innovation is compatible with the
current practices followed by the adopter
The degree to which the innovation is perceived as
relatively easy to understand and use
The degree to which the practice may be
experimented on a partial basis.
The greater the degree to which the conservation
action can be abandoned and the adopter can go
back to a prior status
The degree to which the results of the innovation are
observable by others.
-panchayats/decentralization (late 1970s)
-decentralization act of 1982: formalized duties
and responsibilities of village panchayats and ward
committees
-forest act 1993: forest dependent communities to
directly participate in and take control of forest
management at the local level
-rural dependency on forests
-subsistence needs for firewood and leaf litter
-use of local skills and knowledge
-adaptability to each community (each has own
governance approach) from traditional governance
structures
-primary/secondary users
-local elite understand more than poor
-forest management has become increasingly
more technically complex
-initially it was conservation oriented, but has
evolved to include enterprise development and
livelihood improvement
-pilot studies: early versions of program in the
mid-1970s and then fully implemented in 1990s
-if it doesn’t work for one community, another can
establish a CFUG -> once given to a group, it
belongs to them; even if one is dissolved, it will be
handed to another
-income from CF has resulted in construction of
roads, schools, health posts
-1 in every 3 Nepalis is a member
-democratic processes/participatory
-public auditing/public hearings
63
Ability to tailor CF to suit the
needs of communities of forest
users
Economic well-being of
communities of forest users
Level of education of communities
of forest users
Openness of communities of
forest users to new ideas and
practices
Competition amongst
communities of forest users
Few leaders in communities of
forest users making the decisions
The degree to which the adopters can tailor the
conservation action to their needs
The resources people use to meet basic consumption
and material needs and access other sources of well
being
The structures, systems, and practices - formal and
informal - used to transfer knowledge and skills in a
society
how open the adopter is to adopting new ideas ->
done on a local level and not country level
The degree to which units within a system compete
for resources, funds, ties to external agents, status
Degree to which power and control in a system are
concentrated in the hands of a relatively few
individuals
-modified to strengthen subgroups (increase
influence of marginalised groups)
-adapt to more enterprise-oriented non-timber
forest products
-each CFUG has own operational plan, harvesting
rules, rates for products, distribution for surplus
income
-tailor to local contexts
-livelihood security -> firewood (cooking source),
fodder, grass
-more than 2/3 of population live in rural areas
-Livelihood source, household assets, wealth
proxies for the community
-women fall behind men in education
-access to knowledge/illiteracy issues for whole
population
-low literacy rate may hinder participation in
conservation
School enrolment, informal knowledge systems
-firewood is priority for low-caste groups vs.
timber is priority for wealthier groups
-traditional trade systems of resources for
labour/trade in local markets
For resources, funds, ties to external
organizations, status
-hierarchy: gender, caste, ethnicity, class,
geographic isolation
-social marginalization
-Brahmin and Chhetri continue to occupy superior
economic and political position in communities
compared to Dalits and indigenous people
64
Diversity and adequate skills,
knowledge and expertise within
the communities of forest users
Degree to which rules and
procedures (e.g. religious norms)
are enforced within the
communities of forest users
Degree to which communities of
forest users can communicate
about local forest management
Size of the communities of forest
users
Ability of communities of forest
users to participate in decision
making
Influence of natural environment
or environmental conditions (e.g.
forest degradation)
Degree to which an organization's members possess
relatively high level of knowledge and expertise,
usually measured by the members' range of
occupational specialities and degree of
professionalism
Degree to which the adopter emphasizes its
members' following the rules and procedures
irrespective of whether CF is there or not
The degree to which the potential adopters
interpersonal and organizational networks (including
social density) can increase communication about the
innovation
Size of the organization making the decision to adopt
or reject - number of people involved, budget, size of
area served
People's ability to participate in the decision-making
processes that effect their lives
The degree to which the ecological infrastructures
such as climate, weather, soil, landscape
characteristics influence adoption
formal rules in place, enforcement system
-only men can own land
-hinduism is the dominant religion -> cultural
norms and rules imposed through this
-stringent regulations imposed by state to exclude
people from controlling forest resources
-presence of existing dense social networks and
traditional models of collective action around local
forest management
-information is disseminated through word of
mouth -> local elite withhold information from the
poor (information is power)
-smaller the community, higher the level of
participation in adoption
-communities with larger number of households
adopt rigid management regime
-local communities prefer larger forests -> more
likely to adopt
-untouchables have low representation in decision
making
-hierarchical and patriarchal societal structure,
excluding marginalised groups
-women’s exclusion in decision-making
-elite-capture/elite dominance in decision making
-mid-hills vs. terai: success in mid hills, but difficult
to replicate in other parts of the country because
of differing conditions in the area
-government was willing to relinquish control of
mid-hills because of degradation, but terai is
valuable (vegetation, animals, etc.), so
government is less willing to give land to CFUGs
-extreme monsoons/floods
65
Proximity between communities
of forest users
Openness/lack of openness of
Nepalese society to adopting new
ideas or practices
Similarity amongst communities of
forest users across Nepal
Opportunities for learning
between communities of forest
users facilitated by external
organizations
National policies supporting the
adoption of CF
Bureaucracy hindering the process
of participating in CF
The degree to which the geographical setting (e.g.
weather) or proximity will influence the frequency of
communication and interaction between actors or
potential adopters and the innovation itself
Associated with social inertia in adopting new
practices and ideas
Degree of structural equivalence/cultural similarity
between transmitters and potential adopters
Mobilization of available societal talents of
entrepreneurship, perseverance, determination,
marketing skills that influence adoption through
social learning processes
Degree to which the national policies of Nepal
support community forestry
Administrative burden on the process to adopt an
initiative
-closer you live to forest, more you can
use/benefit from it
-CF operates in 74 of the country’s 75 districts
-head of household joins CFUG, but quotas ensure
women’s participation
-unwillingness to deviate from traditional/historic
strategies -> reluctance of local communities to
depart from traditional practices w/ lack of
willingness to accept assistance from external
bodies
-unfair distribution of land/benefits in the terai as
compared to the mid-hills with CF
-mixed forest users -> heterogenous social/cultural
environment
-government supported tree planting activities in
the early phase of CF
-international donors pressured reforms to
implement CF
-transferring property rights from state to CFUG
-CF is supported through institutional and policy
reforms from the government (Master Plan for the
Forestry Sector (1988), Forest Rules (1995), etc.)
-CFUG submit management plans to Department
of Forests for approval annually
-personal relationships within forest bureaucracy
and between foresters shape the Nepali system
-Power differentials between local people and
foresters -> mutual mistrust and limited
opportunities for mutual agreement
- women are kept out of the initial stages of CFUG
development, men discuss and reach consensus
themselves
66
Trust between the government
and communities of forest users
Support and facilitation from local
organizations, local NGOs, local
universities, etc.
Presence of champions/individual
forest users who push for the
adoption of CF
Presence of international policies,
incentives, etc. that promote the
adoption of CF
Presence of international NGOs
and corporations encouraging the
adoption of CF
Existence of political freedoms and laws, trust in
government
Presence of local organizations and extension support
to communicate about and facilitate implementation
of new ideas and practices
A charismatic individual who throws her or his weight
behind an innovation, thus overcoming indifference
or resistance that the new idea may provoke in an
organization
The spread of rule-like behavioural models that are
supported by common recipes and an implicit
structure of incentives for the adoption of approved
forms of practices, programs, or policies
Global adoption of technological innovations,
including agricultural and industrial practices, that is
facilitated by the growth of multinational
organizations, as well as by the generally low
threshold of diffusion of technological innovations
-corruption in politicians and local officials
-political interests overwhelm local
dynamics/interests
-governments have lack of concern about social
outcomes and lack of attention to the potential of
corruption/elite capture
- political changes -> government may be of one
political power, but people in the forestry
department may be from a different political
background; CFUGs may not trust certain
governmental powers
Number of local organizations, interactions with
community
-FECOFUN
-government chose pre-existing user groups to
champion this initiative
Incentives - Direct or indirect payments of cash or
in kind that are given to an individual/ organization
in order to encourage behavioural change.
-incentives given to socio-marginalized people
within CF program
-convention on biological diversity
-kyoto protocol
-Readiness Preparation Proposal
-International Conference on Mountain
-IUCN’s World Conservation Strategy of 1990
-UN REDD+
-CF has been adopted in both the global north and
south
-earliest examples were from Nepal, Philippines
and India
- presence of international NGOs
- push from corporations
67
Modern communication systems Modern communication systems or media effects -growth of media spurring adoption of CF
facilitating the spread of -media projection of crisis in Himalayas
information about CF (eg. radio,
internet or phone)

Driver X

Driver Y

Driver Z

68
Appendix C: Individual ToC

Below is an example of a participant’s TOC created in the last stage of the sorting activity in
Lucidchart.

69
Appendix D: Threshold for the Unified ToC

The following charts illustrate the total number of times participants selected each of the 39 drivers as
most influential during the sorting activity. Each chart represents one of the three DOI characteristics:
innovation, adopter, or context. The boxes highlighted in green represent variables that were selected
by more than one-third of the participants and appeared in the unified ToC; the boxes highlighted in
red represent variables that were selected by less than one-third of the participants as most
influential and did not appear in the unified ToC.

Innovation Characteristics
Table of the total number of participants that selected Innovation Characteristics drivers as being most influential.

Drivers No. of Participants

Compatibility of CF with subsistence needs of communities of forest users 21

Ability to tailor CF to suit the needs of communities of forest users 14

Compatibility of CF with the values and beliefs of communities of forest users 12

Compatibility of CF with current forest use 12

Economic costs/benefits of CF as perceived by communities of forest users 11

The degree to which communities of forest users know community forestry rules, procedures and benefits 11

Social costs/benefits of CF as perceived by communities of forest users 10

Opportunity for communities of forest users to gain social prestige and political empowerment as a result of CF 8

Environmental costs/benefits of CF as perceived by communities of forest users 7

Visibility of practice and results of CF 7

Speed at which the communities of forest users obtained benefits of CF 6

Compatibility of CF with previous efforts of decentralizing resource management 4

Ability to test CF before full adoption 4

Perceived risks associated with the adoption of CF by communities of forest users 1

Ability to abandon CF and go back to the status quo 1

Perceived initial costs of implementation of CF by communities of forest users 0

70
Adopter Characteristics
Table of the total number of participants that selected Adopter Characteristic drivers as being most influential.

Drivers No. of Participants

Ability of communities of forest users to participate in decision making 10

Economic well-being of communities of forest users 9

Degree to which rules and procedures (e.g. religious norms) are enforced within the communities of forest users 5

Openness of communities of forest users to new ideas and practices 4

Diversity and adequate skills, knowledge and expertise within the communities of forest users 3

Size of the communities of forest users 3

Competition amongst communities of forest users 2

Few leaders in communities of forest users making the decisions 2

Degree to which communities of forest users can communicate about local forest management 2

Level of education of communities of forest users 0

Context Characteristics
Table of the total number of participants that selected Context Characteristics drivers as being most influential.

Drivers No. of Participants

National policies supporting the adoption of CF 19

Support and facilitation from local organizations, local NGOs, local universities, etc. 15

Presence of international donors, NGOs, etc. encouraging the adoption of CF 15

Influence of natural environment or environmental conditions (e.g. forest degradation) 14

Presence of champions/individual forest users who push for the adoption of CF 14

Trust between the government and communities of forest users 13

Presence of international policies, incentives, etc. that promote the adoption of CF 11

Proximity between communities of forest users 10

Opportunities for learning between communities of forest users facilitated by external organizations 9

Bureaucracy hindering the process of participating in CF 8

Modern communication systems facilitating the spread of information about CF (eg. radio, internet or phone) 4

Openness/lack of openness of Nepalese society to adopting new ideas or practices 1

Similarity amongst communities of forest users across Nepal 0

71