MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beyond the trees: Equity and justice in Nepal’s forest restoration

2025· article· en· W4415314587 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLand Use Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
KeywordsEquity (law)Forest restorationEnvironmental justiceForest managementIntact forest landscapeEconomic JusticeFocus group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined equity and justice in forest restoration programs in Madhesh province in Nepal. We selected four sites that have three different tenure regimes, namely, community forest (Baghbhairav and Musahar), collaborative forest management (Tamagadhi), and forest protection area (Dhanushadham). The primary data were collected through focus group discussion, key informant interviews, field observations, and forest cover change analysis. We used ArcGIS to perform a spatial overlay analysis to identify the forest cover dynamic (1990, 2000, 2010, and 2022), followed by an examination of equity and justice under its four dimensions: contextual, procedural, distributive, and recognition. Atlas.ti, a computer-assisted software, was used to create codes, sub-themes, and themes from qualitative information, which were then used for further interpretations. Our findings indicated that while forest cover in the study sites is changing rapidly, with temporal and spatial variation across the sites, restoration and equity are inextricably linked and mutually reinforce each other. We also identified visible interactions among the four dimensions of equity, with each contributing to restoration in a different way. The paper concludes that multiple factors undermine forest restoration, among them, equity and justice,community heterogeneity, weak tenure rights, and conflicts over forest benefits sharing are the prominent. The findings imply that, for successful restoration, equity and justice must be considered as the core elements for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons. • Forest cover in the Madhesh Province of Nepal is changing rapidly, with temporal and spatial variation. • Restoration and equity are inextricably linked and reinforce each other. • Interactions among the four dimensions of equity, and tenure arrangements are contributing to restoration differently . • Weak tenure rights, community heterogeneity and perceived inequity affected restoration outcomes. • Equity and justice are intrinsic and instrumental elements of restoration success.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it