PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 14, 2026Sustainability0 citationsOpen Access

Environmental Justice in Ecological Resettlements in Nepal: Social, Ecological and Environmental Perspectives

View Full Paper
HPHari Prasad PandeyAAArmando ApanTMTek Maraseni

Key Points

  • To assess the social and ecological impacts of ecological resettlement in Nepal's Terai Arc Landscape using an enhanced environmental justice framework.
  • Data collected from 240 households through interviews and focus groups
  • Analysis included chi-square and McNemar tests for justice outcomes
  • Policy reviews and field observations supplemented findings.
  • Significant disparities in ecological and social justice indicators post-resettlement
  • Procedural justice participation increased from 43% to 62% post-resettlement
  • Distributive justice showed mixed compensation outcomes, with 52% reporting fairness
  • Forest cover decreased post-resettlement in 65% of areas, while grassland increased in 28%

Abstract

Ecological resettlement (ER), or conservation-led displacement, is widely implemented to safeguard biodiversity but often produces complex socio-ecological outcomes. This study assessed the environmental justice (both social and ecological) impacts of ER in Nepal’s Terai Arc Landscape (TAL) using an enhanced (including social, ecological, and environmental aspects) environmental justice (EJ) framework. Data were collected from 240 households across all resettled villages within the Chitwan and Parsa National Parks (NPs) of Nepal through household interviews, key informant interviews, focus groups, and field observations, supplemented by policy reviews, reports, and unpublished documents. Household demographics indicated an average family size of 5.5, gender parity (664 females, 658 males), and diverse caste/ethnic composition (ethnic: 146 households; higher caste: 64; lower caste: 6). Wealth distribution and literacy were uneven, with disparities in land ownership, assets, and social positions. Social and ecological justice outcomes were analysed using chi-square and McNemar tests. We observed a significant difference (p < 0.05) in substantive justice (food, shelter, clothing, and security) attributes before and after the resettlements. Similarly, significant improvements post-resettlement were observed in procedural and recognition justice: participation in decision-making increased from 43% to 62% (χ2 = 12.34, p < 0.05). However, recognition of Indigenous knowledge and FPIC rights remained low, with 93% of households reporting inadequate acknowledgment (χ2 = 198.5, p < 0.05). Distributive justice indicators, including access to compensation and forest resources, showed mixed outcomes, with 52% reporting fair compensation and 48% citing inequities (p < 0.05). Ecological outcomes also shifted significantly: forest cover decreased in 65% of surveyed areas post-resettlement, while grassland extent increased in 28% (χ2 = 27.4, p < 0.05). Water source accessibility declined for 48% of households (χ2 = 21.6, p < 0.05), and bushfire incidence decreased by 15% (χ2 = 9.8, p < 0.05). Composite scoring revealed strong linkages between social justice deficits and ecological downturn in the resettled areas, suggesting that inadequate participation, recognition, inequitable compensation, and ecological degradation shift the issues from parks to the outside and exacerbate environmental vulnerability. These findings demonstrate that ER can achieve partial ecological objectives inside the parks but often perpetuates social inequities and ecological downturn in the resettled areas, undermining the long-term sustainability of the socio-ecological landscape. The study highlights the critical need to integrate social justice, participatory governance, and ecological monitoring into resettlement planning. Future policies should be grounded in the understanding that conservation effectiveness and social equity are mutually reinforcing, and that ignoring justice dimensions risks undermining both biodiversity outcomes and human wellbeing.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Pandey et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b4ba0818185d8a3980270ahttps://doi.org/10.3390/su18062746
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper