Table 3. Summary results of the four indicators used to measure the efficiency of the conservation institution in the Annapurna Conservation Area. Conservation Area Management Committee members were asked to rate on a 5-point scale if the following things are better or worse now than they used to be 10 years ago: much better =5, somewhat better = 4, no change = 3, somewhat worse = 2, much worse = 1. (Source: authors’ interview data; n = 190)
| |
| |
|
Statement |
Much better |
Somewhat better |
No change |
Somewhat
worse |
Much worse |
Mean ± SD |
| |
|
1. People can get permits to harvest natural resources easily |
59.5% |
21.6% |
13.7% |
5.3% |
- |
4.35 ± 0.91 |
|
2. Ordinary people can influence conservation and development issues in the
village |
44.2% |
48.4% |
7.4% |
- |
- |
4.37 ± 0.62 |
|
3. People have an adequate standard of living |
35.8% |
49.5% |
13.7% |
1.1% |
- |
4.20 ± 0.71 |
|
4. Conservation efforts are effective |
31.6% |
58.9% |
6.3% |
3.2% |
- |
4.19 ± 0.69 |
|
| |
|