Bir Chhetri

Prof. Bir Chhetri

Tribhuvan University, Institute of Forestry, Pokhara
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 May 2013 in Forest Policy and Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Bir ChhetriBir Chhetri
Bir Chhetri
FJFred Hakon Johnsen
Fred Hakon Johnsen
MKMasashi Konoshima
Masashi Konoshima
AYAtsushi Yoshimoto
Atsushi Yoshimoto

1 November 2015 in Forest Policy and Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
RRRebecca Leigh Rutt
Rebecca Leigh Rutt
Bir ChhetriBir Chhetri
Bir Chhetri
RPRidish Pokharel
Ridish Pokharel
SRSantosh Rayamajhi
Santosh Rayamajhi
KTKrishna Tiwari
Krishna Tiwari
TTThorsten Treue
Thorsten Treue

9 November 2011 in Ecological Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Bir ChhetriBir Chhetri
Bir Chhetri
JLJens Friis Lund
Jens Friis Lund
ØNØystein Juul Nielsen
Øystein Juul Nielsen

22 June 2014 in Environment, Development and Sustainability
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Bir ChhetriBir Chhetri
Bir Chhetri
HLHelle Overgaard Larsen
Helle Overgaard Larsen
Carsten Smith-HallCarsten Smith-Hall
Carsten Smith-Hall

3 May 2019 in Resources
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PBPuspa K.C. Bhandari
Puspa K.C. Bhandari
PBPrabin Bhusal
Prabin Bhusal
GPGanesh Paudel
Ganesh Paudel
CUChiranjibi P. Upadhyaya
Chiranjibi P. Upadhyaya
Bir ChhetriBir Chhetri
Bir Chhetri
Nepal’s Community Forestry (CF) process has implied the devolution of powers to collect, retain, and redistribute forest revenue from community forests products. This study contributes to our knowledge about these important aspects of CF by presenting an analysis of the dynamic pattern of income and expenditure of 43 randomly selected Community Forestry User Groups (CFUGs) from Kaski, Nepal. Results show that CFUG three-year average annual income accounts NRs 216,225 (1 US$ = NRs.114) and is highly skewed towards a few wells off CFUGs; the high-and-low average annual income of one-third of CFUGs in the sample ranges from NRs. 33,116 to NRs 502,363. Timber income and user’s contribution constitute the most important sources of income, comprising 40% and 25% respectively. The rural development investments of CFUG income are also highly variable and are shaped by income size of CF, and the other socio-political factors such as the number of households, distance to market, infrastructure status, and contextual factors. Overall, 44% of the CFUG income is invested in community development and 37% in forest conservation. Investment in community development increases with rising income. Accordingly, results presented here provide insights to promote community forests to generate more income which, indeed, could be a vehicle for community development as it appears in the mid-hills of Nepal.

1 January 2014 in Forest Policy and Economics
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
JLJens Friis Lund
Jens Friis Lund
KBKeshab Baral
Keshab Baral
NBNirmala Singh Bhandari
Nirmala Singh Bhandari
Bir ChhetriBir Chhetri
Bir Chhetri
HLHelle Overgaard Larsen
Helle Overgaard Larsen
TTThorsten Treue
Thorsten Treue