↓ Skip to main content

Pitfalls of CITES Implementation in Nepal: A Policy Gap Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Management, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
125 Mendeley
Title
Pitfalls of CITES Implementation in Nepal: A Policy Gap Analysis
Published in
Environmental Management, June 2012
DOI 10.1007/s00267-012-9896-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yogesh Dongol, Joel T. Heinen

Abstract

Implementation of policy involves multiple agencies operating at multiple levels in facilitating processes and actions to accomplish desired results. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was developed and implemented to regulate and control international wildlife trade, but violations of the agreement are widespread and growing worldwide, including in Nepal. This study attempts to understand how domestic CITES policies are translated into action and what effect actions and processes have on compliance. In doing so, this study provides insights into the implementation and enforcement pitfalls of national legislation that explain CITES violations in Nepal. Primarily, we used 26 key informants interviews to learn opinions of experts, and the grounded theory approach for further qualitative data analysis. In addition, we used Najman's (1995) policy implementation analysis framework to explain gaps. Many interrelated variables in the content of the policy, commitment and capacity of the agencies, the roles of clients and coalitions and contextual issues were observed. Variables that emerged suggest pitfalls in the regulatory policy represented by low probability of detection, arrest and punishment. Moreover, redistributive policies in buffer zones of protected areas are needed into perpetuity to benefit locals. Also, conservation organizations' support for building public and political salience is imperative.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 125 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 120 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 15%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 14 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 37 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 25%
Social Sciences 17 14%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 3 2%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 20 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2014.
All research outputs
#20,653,708
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Management
#1,653
of 1,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#139,111
of 177,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Management
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,913 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,998 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.