1. Figure 1. Approach for developing C & I in the TD and BU approach.
From: Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal
Forestry (Lond). 2012;85(1): doi: /forestry/cpr068
Forestry (Lond) | © Institute of Chartered Foresters, All rights reserved. For Permissions, please

2. Figure 2. Example of the Delphi questionnaire on SFM indicators, Nepal (Note: BZM = buffer zone management; GFM = government managed forest).
From: Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal
Forestry (Lond). 2012;85(1): doi: /forestry/cpr068
Forestry (Lond) | © Institute of Chartered Foresters, All rights reserved. For Permissions, please

3. Figure 3. Outcomes of the SWOT analysis of Nawalpur Saraswati (Basamadi) CFUG.
From: Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal
Forestry (Lond). 2012;85(1): doi: /forestry/cpr068
Forestry (Lond) | © Institute of Chartered Foresters, All rights reserved. For Permissions, please

4. Figure 4. Stakeholder preferences for the indicators of criteria 1
Figure 4. Stakeholder preferences for the indicators of criteria 1. a) Stakeholder preferences for the indicators I1.1-I1.4 and I1.7 in the top-down approach. I1.1= respect and enforces national and local laws; I1.2 = pay fees, royalties and taxes; I1.3 = compliance international agreement; I1.4 = evaluation of conflicting laws; I1.7 = protect from illegal and unauthorized activities. b) Stakeholder preferences for the indicators I1.1- I1.5 in the bottom-up approach. I1.1= respect and enforces national and local laws; I1.2 = pay fees, royalties and taxes; I1.3 = compliance international agreement; I1.4 = evaluation of conflicting laws; I1.5= protect from illegal and unauthorized activities. Note: I1.5= knowledge of forest laws and directives; I1.6= define legislative framework excluded for the purpose of comparing to bottom-up approach.
From: Comparing a top-down and bottom-up approach in the identification of criteria and indicators for sustainable community forest management in Nepal
Forestry (Lond). 2012;85(1): doi: /forestry/cpr068
Forestry (Lond) | © Institute of Chartered Foresters, All rights reserved. For Permissions, please