Nepal: baseline evidence and resettlement planning

A project baseline connects the conditions of affected people with the wider economy, settlement pattern and public services. Nepal's district profiles, censuses and household surveys provide this context. Resettlement research adds the family histories, land uses, losses and assistance records needed to assess a particular project.

Upper Trishuli-1 in Rasuwa illustrates how these sources work together. Its disclosed resettlement plan contains a household questionnaire, fieldwork methods and survey coverage figures, alongside district statistics and livelihood commitments. The resettlement budget analysis examines the financial evidence; the comparison of seven Nepal project plans tests cost components, accounting scope and population definitions. This discussion connects that evidence to baseline design and follow-up.

Connect national, district and project evidence

Evidence Coverage and period Application
Historical district profiles and census tables Dated district, VDC and ward publications; the retained index contains 77 district entries Establish local context and trace the source of each indicator through the district finding aid
National Population and Housing Census 2021 Official published aggregates, including ward tables Review population, household and settlement characteristics in the NSO census catalogue
Nepal Living Standards Survey IV Household and individual evidence collected July 2022–June 2023; 15 reporting domains Select comparable welfare and livelihood concepts from the survey documentation
Upper Trishuli-1 socioeconomic survey Affected-family interviews in April–May 2017, reported in the December 2018 plan Examine project losses, earthquake disruption, household change and livelihood restoration preferences

The historical district index records 66 entries with document references and 11 explicit gaps. These counts describe a finding aid. Inspect the referenced tables for their observation dates, geographic coverage and denominators. Older Rukum and Nawalparasi references cover areas subsequently divided into separate districts; preserve the original geographic unit until a documented correspondence supports comparison.

District context uses the Survey Department of Nepal / UN RCO COD-AB boundary edition, valid March 2024, under CC BY 3.0 IGO. The map locates Rasuwa; the project footprint, affected parcels and households require their own verified spatial records.

NLSS IV provides national and survey-domain estimates from a two-stage sample of 9,600 households. Its questionnaire covers consumption, employment, farming, migration, remittances and access to facilities. Use its definitions, weights and reporting domains together. An affected-family study needs its own coverage assessment and comparison design. The Nepal survey guide develops these statistical and geographic correspondences.

Examine the Upper Trishuli-1 instrument

The December 2018 Land Acquisition and Livelihood Restoration Plan includes the 2017 socioeconomic questionnaire, with 65 numbered items in Annex F (printed F-1–F-12; PDF pp. 247–258). It links respondents to their 2015 livelihood-plan household code, original village and present residence. Its questions address earthquake losses, household separation, land and housing, income and expenditure, compensation use, support received, agricultural access, labor migration and training preferences.

This structure responds to a specific historical setting. The 2015 earthquake changed residence and livelihoods while project land acquisition and livelihood planning continued. The plan combines 2011 census context, the 2014 supplementary ESIA, earlier livelihood research and the updated 2017 affected-family survey. Retain these observation periods when interpreting its findings (Table 4.1, printed p. 26; PDF p. 38).

Annex B documents an enumerator workshop on 26 April 2017, a field test at Nuabesi camp on 27 April, and household interviews beginning on 28 April. Researchers adapted the tool following the field test and interviewed families in camps, temporary settlements and other accessible locations. Household separation since 2015 was investigated and newly established households were covered separately (Annex B, printed B-3–B-5; PDF pp. 184–186).

The plan reports interviews with 129 of 154 identified affected families, or 83.8%. Eleven families were reported to have moved away, two had no representative available, and twelve remained outside the survey while negotiations continued. Preserve these reasons in the coverage register and examine whether missing families differ in exposure or vulnerability (printed pp. 6–7; PDF pp. 18–19).

The disclosed questionnaire and methodological account support review of the study design. Household response files, a reconciled longitudinal register and audited payment records would support further analysis of individual outcomes. The budget case distinguishes the 154-family affected population, the 149-family livelihood cohort and the recipients of particular benefits.

Align measures before making comparisons

Measure What the project instrument contributes Design for comparison and follow-up
Household composition Earlier household code, respondent relationship and household separation Retain links between families, resident households and individual members across rounds
Living standards Reported income, expenditure and changes around the earthquake Align recall periods, consumption coverage, household membership, season and price basis with the selected national instrument
Land-dependent livelihoods Cultivation, tenancy, sharecropping and use of production Link the household to land actually used, its productivity, access, water and restrictions
Mobility Original and present residence, work migration and intentions to return Record dates and reasons for moves, including earthquake displacement and employment changes
Assistance and restoration Compensation use, support providers and training preferences Reconcile reported receipts with dated payment records, participation and livelihood outcomes

The instrument's retrospective pre-earthquake questions provide reported histories. A prospective follow-up should preserve stable identifiers, record household splits and moves, and repeat defined measures at comparable seasons. Separate earthquake-related changes, wider economic trends and project-related losses through a documented analytical design. The questionnaire guide and sampling discussion explain the reusable methods.

Relate livelihood evidence to place

The plan records concerns about the productivity of replacement land uphill from acquired valley land. Follow-up should examine productive capacity, water, travel time, tenure, labor requirements and market access alongside land area. Map original and present residence, parcels used, resource access and service routes with dates and an explicit geographic reference. The spatial baseline workflow develops these operations; the geospatial methods discussion explains their assessment purpose.

A district profile, an affected-family questionnaire and a payment register contribute different evidence to the same assessment. Preserve their units and provenance, then connect them through documented geographic and household relationships. This allows the baseline to inform entitlement review, livelihood planning and verification of delivery.

Sources

Public links lead to the source organizations. Access to reviewed archive editions is managed through reader permissions.