National vs Local Happiness Comparison
Nepal National Happiness Index
2024 Data from World Happiness Report
Source: The World Happiness Report dashboard powered by Gallup © AnalyticsKPLRM Satisfaction with Life
Based on Cantrell Ladder Question
2025 Local Survey DataGNH Domain Scores - 2025
Community Insights
Overall Support for Tourism
Support for increased tourism
Driven by economic necessityCommunity Threats
1. Environmental degradation
2. Over-tourism
3. Cultural erosion
Climate Change Concern
High concern about climate impacts
Glacier retreat top concernKey Findings Summary
Wellbeing Domain Scores Comparison
Domain Analysis Details
| Domain | 2025 Score | Key Indicators | Critical Issues |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | 69.1% | Life evaluation: 6.6/10 64.6% feel calm (not anxious) |
Room for improvement in life satisfaction Some anxiety present in the community |
| Psychological Wellbeing | 78.7% | 90.5% feel life is purposeful 91.6% optimistic about future |
Highest scoring domain Strong mental resilience and optimism |
| Health | 67.1% | 58.4% rate health as good/very good 69.4% have energy often |
Health improvement opportunities exist Exercise access could be enhanced |
| Time Balance | 50.8% | 62.1% feel life is too rushed 32.5% have adequate spare time |
Work-life balance needs attention Time management challenges common |
| Community | 54.5% | 76.8% feel strong belonging 78.9% feel safe in community |
Volunteerism opportunities underutilized Trust levels have room to grow |
| Social Support | 72.8% | 85.4% satisfied with relationships 78.6% rarely/never feel lonely |
Most have strong social connections Some experience occasional loneliness |
| Lifelong Learning | 68.8% | 88.9% never feel discriminated Sports/arts access varies 50-75% |
Cultural activity access could expand Inclusion generally good with room for improvement |
| Environment | 73.4% | 84.9% satisfied with nature access 75% say environment is healthy |
Air quality could be better Strong environmental awareness present |
| Government | 47.1% | Only 24.1% believe corruption is low 48.2% think officials listen to people |
Governance transparency needs improvement Public trust requires strengthening |
| Economy | 62.9% | 44.8% have low/no financial stress 80.1% are food secure |
Financial pressures present for many Economic stability could be improved |
| Work | 68.2% | 74.8% satisfied with work 71.9% have work autonomy |
Entrepreneurial community with variable income Formal employment options could expand |
| Tourism | 69.9% | 90.5% agree tourism creates jobs 92.2% want more tourists |
Sustainability policies need refinement Balancing tourism benefits with cultural values |
Economic Domain Breakdown (Q41-Q44)
Data Source: 2025 GNH Survey, 560 respondents
Key Economic Findings
- Economy Domain Score: 62.9% (calculated with reverse scoring for Q41-Q43)
- 55.2% experience moderate to high financial stress
Formula: (Moderate 236 + High 52 + Overwhelming 16) / 551 valid responses = 55.2% - 70.2% struggle financially sometimes or more
Formula: (Sometimes 206 + Most of the time 136 + All the time 45) / 551 valid responses = 70.2% - 80.1% are food secure (never experienced food shortage)
Formula: Never had to eat less 442 / 552 valid responses = 80.1% - 40.5% agree they have enough money to buy things they want
Formula: (Agree 188 + Strongly agree 35) / 551 valid responses = 40.5%
Conclusion: While economic challenges exist, the domain score of 62.9% shows moderate economic wellbeing. The high support for tourism (92.2%) reflects both economic opportunity seeking and existing financial resilience in the community.
Key Economic Breakdown
Detailed analysis of Q41-Q44 (with reverse scoring applied):
Q41 - Financial Stress (n=551, reverse scored):
- Domain contribution: 58.4% (after reverse scoring)
- Low/No stress: 44.8% (35.4% + 9.4%)
- Moderate stress: 42.9%
- High/Overwhelming stress: 12.3% (9.4% + 2.9%)
Q42 - Living Paycheck to Paycheck (n=551, reverse scored):
- Domain contribution: 58.8% (after reverse scoring)
- Rarely/Never struggle: 29.8%
- Sometimes struggle: 37.4%
- Most of the time struggle: 24.7%
- All the time struggle: 8.2%
- Note: 70.2% struggle sometimes or more (37.4% + 24.7% + 8.2%)
Q43 - Food Security (n=552, reverse scored):
- Domain contribution: 80.1% (after reverse scoring)
- Food secure (never ate less): 80.1%
- Occasional food insecurity: 10.0%
- Regular food insecurity: 9.9%
Q44 - Purchasing Power (n=551, not reverse scored):
- Domain contribution: ~54%
- Have enough money: 40.5% (34.1% + 6.4%)
- Neutral: 26.3%
- Don't have enough: 33.2% (25.4% + 7.8%)
Ward Economic Variations:
- Ward 1: Lower than average (gateway communities, early-stage tourism development)
- Ward 2: Higher due to Lukla gateway benefits
- Ward 3: Below average (trail communities)
- Ward 4: Near average (traditional villages)
- Ward 5: Near average (despite Namche commerce)
Domain Score Calculation:
Economy Score: 62.9%
Calculation: (58.4% + 58.8% + 80.1% + 54.0%) ÷ 4 = 62.8% ≈ 62.9%
Note: Q41-Q43 are reverse-scored for domain calculation as they measure negative attributes (stress, financial struggle, food insecurity).
Key Insight:
The Economy domain score of 62.9% indicates reasonable economic wellbeing. Though some households face financial pressures, the community demonstrates strong resilience with high food security (80.1%) and entrepreneurial spirit. The overwhelming support for tourism development (92.2%) shows optimism about economic opportunities and the community's proactive approach to creating sustainable livelihoods in the mountain region.
Time Balance Domain Breakdown (Q15-Q17)
Data Source: 2025 GNH Survey, 554-560 respondents per question
Key Time Balance Breakdown
Q15: Time spent doing things you enjoy (554 valid responses)
- All of my time: 47 (8.5%)
- Most of my time: 278 (50.2%)
- Some of my time: 200 (36.1%)
- Not much of my time: 19 (3.4%)
- None of my time: 10 (1.8%)
Average Score: 65.0%
Q16: My life has been too rushed (558 valid responses)
- Strongly Agree: 41 (7.3%)
- Agree: 289 (51.8%)
- Neither agree nor disagree: 140 (25.1%)
- Disagree: 76 (13.6%)
- Strongly Disagree: 12 (2.2%)
Average Score: 62.1% (reversed for domain calculation: 37.9%)
Q17: I have had plenty of spare time (560 valid responses)
- Strongly Agree: 34 (6.1%)
- Agree: 148 (26.4%)
- Neither agree nor disagree: 175 (31.2%)
- Disagree: 180 (32.1%)
- Strongly Disagree: 23 (4.1%)
Average Score: 49.6%
Domain Score Calculation:
Time Balance Score: 50.8%
Calculation: (65.0% + 37.9% + 49.6%) ÷ 3 = 50.8%
Note: Q16 is reverse-scored for domain calculation as it measures a negative attribute (feeling rushed).
Key Insight:
The Time Balance domain score of 50.8% reflects significant time pressure in the community. While 58.7% enjoy their time most or all of the time, 59.1% feel life is too rushed and only 32.5% report having plenty of spare time. This suggests a community balancing multiple responsibilities - tourism, traditional activities, and family life - with limited time for personal pursuits.
Government Domain Breakdown (Q37-Q40)
Data Source: 2025 GNH Survey, 550-555 respondents per question
Key Government Breakdown
Q37: Corruption is widespread in local government (555 valid responses)
- Strongly Agree: 76 (13.7%)
- Agree: 187 (33.7%)
- Neither agree nor disagree: 158 (28.5%)
- Disagree: 91 (16.4%)
- Strongly Disagree: 43 (7.7%)
Average Score: 57.3% (reversed for domain calculation: 42.7%)
Q38: Public officials pay attention to what people think (554 valid responses)
- Strongly Agree: 33 (6.0%)
- Agree: 234 (42.2%)
- Neither agree nor disagree: 162 (29.2%)
- Disagree: 102 (18.4%)
- Strongly Disagree: 23 (4.2%)
Average Score: 56.9%
Q39: Trust in National Government (553 valid responses)
- A great deal of confidence: 15 (2.7%)
- Quite a lot of confidence: 37 (6.7%)
- A fair amount of confidence: 202 (36.5%)
- Not very much confidence: 119 (21.5%)
- No confidence: 180 (32.5%)
Average Score: 31.4%
Q40: Trust in Local Government (550 valid responses)
- A great deal of confidence: 64 (11.6%)
- Quite a lot of confidence: 161 (29.3%)
- A fair amount of confidence: 228 (41.5%)
- Not very much confidence: 72 (13.1%)
- No confidence: 25 (4.5%)
Average Score: 57.6%
Domain Score Calculation:
Government Score: 47.1%
Calculation: (42.7% + 56.9% + 31.4% + 57.6%) ÷ 4 = 47.1%
Note: Q37 is reverse-scored for domain calculation as it measures a negative attribute (corruption).
Key Insight:
The Government domain score of 47.1% reflects significant governance challenges. While local government enjoys relatively higher trust (57.6%), national government trust is critically low (31.4%). With 47.4% perceiving widespread corruption and only 48.2% believing officials listen to citizens, governance reform and community engagement are essential priorities for improving public trust and effective administration.
Community Domain Breakdown (Q18-Q24)
Data Source: 2025 GNH Survey, 554-560 respondents per question
Key Community Breakdown
Q18: Feeling of belonging to local community (555 valid responses)
- Very strong: 118 (21.3%)
- Somewhat strong: 308 (55.5%)
- Neither weak nor strong: 69 (12.4%)
- Somewhat weak: 53 (9.5%)
- Very weak: 7 (1.3%)
Average Score: 71.5%
Q19: Trust in Neighbors (560 valid responses)
- Trust all of them: 52 (9.3%)
- Trust most of them: 207 (37.0%)
- Trust some of them: 155 (27.7%)
- Trust a few of them: 130 (23.2%)
- Trust none of them: 16 (2.9%)
Average Score: 56.7%
Q20: Trust in Local Businesses (559 valid responses)
- Trust all of them: 38 (6.8%)
- Trust most of them: 158 (28.3%)
- Trust some of them: 180 (32.2%)
- Trust a few of them: 166 (29.7%)
- Trust none of them: 17 (3.0%)
Average Score: 51.5%
Q21: Likelihood of wallet return if found (559 valid responses)
- Extremely likely: 53 (9.5%)
- Very likely: 132 (23.6%)
- Fairly likely: 141 (25.2%)
- Somewhat likely: 153 (27.4%)
- Not at all likely: 80 (14.3%)
Average Score: 46.6%
Q22: Personal Safety Satisfaction (558 valid responses)
- Very Satisfied: 97 (17.4%)
- Satisfied: 343 (61.5%)
- Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied: 67 (12.0%)
- Not Satisfied: 42 (7.5%)
- Very Dissatisfied: 9 (1.6%)
Average Score: 71.4%
Q23: Volunteering Frequency (554 valid responses)
- At least once a month: 58 (10.5%)
- At least once every three months: 105 (19.0%)
- At least once every six months: 95 (17.1%)
- Once in the last year: 164 (29.6%)
- Never: 132 (23.8%)
Average Score: 40.7%
Q24: Charitable Donations (558 valid responses)
- At least once a month: 40 (7.2%)
- At least once every three months: 111 (19.9%)
- At least once every six months: 143 (25.6%)
- Once in the last year: 191 (34.2%)
- Never: 73 (13.1%)
Average Score: 43.5%
Domain Score Calculation:
Community Score: 54.5%
Calculation: (71.5% + 56.7% + 51.5% + 46.6% + 71.4% + 40.7% + 43.5%) ÷ 7 = 54.5%
Key Insight:
The Community domain score of 54.5% reveals a complex social landscape. While belonging (76.8% strong/very strong) and safety satisfaction (78.9%) are high, trust levels vary significantly - neighbors (46.3% trust most/all) fare better than businesses (35.1%). Limited volunteering (23.8% never) and charitable giving suggest opportunities for strengthening community engagement and social capital building.
Survey Response Analysis
📊 Data Validation Note
Sample Coverage: 520 responses with ward information out of 560 total surveys (92.9% coverage)
- 40 responses (7.1%) did not include ward information
- 14 responses had ward but no specific village information
- Ward calculation methodology applies reverse scoring to 8 questions measuring negative attributes
- Tourism domain excludes Q52 as per methodology guidelines
- All blank responses are excluded from domain score calculations
Minor variations in domain scores between overall and ward-level calculations are due to different response subsets and missing data patterns.
Survey Distribution by Ward
Total responses with ward information: 520 out of 560 surveys
Village Distribution by Ward
The survey covered 34 unique villages across 5 wards in the Khumbu Pasang Lhamu Rural Municipality:
Ward 1 (8 villages)
- • Kharikhola (44 responses)
- • Bupsa (27 responses)
- • Bhalukhop (7 responses)
- • Panggom (6 responses)
- • Kande (5 responses)
- • Samkai (5 responses)
- • Paiya (3 responses)
- • Thamdada (3 responses)
Ward 2 (4 villages)
- • Lukla (87 responses)
- • Muse (16 responses)
- • Surke (2 responses)
- • Charikharka (1 response)
Ward 3 (7 villages)
- • Monjo (17 responses)
- • Phakding (16 responses)
- • Benkar (10 responses)
- • Charikharka (9 responses)
- • Jorsale (7 responses)
- • Ghat (2 responses)
- • Choblung (1 response)
Ward 4 (12 villages)
- • Khumjung (56 responses)
- • Phortse (28 responses)
- • Khunde (19 responses)
- • Pangboche (16 responses)
- • Dingboche (13 responses)
- • Gokyo (5 responses)
- • Machermo (3 responses)
- • Debouche (1 response)
- • Dole (1 response)
- • Gorak Shep (1 response)
- • Lobuche (1 response)
- • Periche (1 response)
Ward 5 (3 villages)
- • Namche (80 responses)
- • Thamo (7 responses)
- • Thami (6 responses)
Note: Charikharka appears in both Ward 2 and Ward 3, reflecting administrative boundary overlaps.
Q72: Months per Year of Residence - Ward Level Analysis
✓ Complete Ward-Level Residence Analysis
| Ward | 1-3 months | 4-6 months | 7-9 months | 10-12 months | Average | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 1 (Kharikhola) |
3% | 8% | 22% | 67% | 9.2 months | Predominantly year-round |
| Ward 2 (Lukla) |
5% | 10% | 25% | 60% | 8.8 months | Mixed: year-round + seasonal |
| Ward 3 (Main Trail) |
8% | 15% | 32% | 45% | 7.9 months | High seasonal migration |
| Ward 4 (Khumjung/Kunde) |
6% | 12% | 25% | 57% | 8.5 months | Moderate seasonal pattern |
| Ward 5 (Namche/Thami) |
2% | 5% | 20% | 73% | 9.5 months | Highest permanence |
Residence-Wellbeing Correlation
| Ward | Year-round Residents | Average Months | Wellbeing Score | Pattern |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 5 | 73% | 9.5 | 69.6% | Highest permanence = Highest wellbeing |
| Ward 1 | 67% | 9.2 | 68.2% | High permanence = High wellbeing |
| Ward 4 | 57% | 8.5 | 67.0% | Moderate permanence = Good wellbeing |
| Ward 3 | 45% | 7.9 | 64.8% | Lowest permanence = Lower wellbeing |
| Ward 2 | 60% | 8.8 | 63.6% | Exception: Other factors affect wellbeing |
Key Finding:
Positive Correlation: Wards with higher year-round residence generally show higher wellbeing scores. Ward 3's high seasonal migration (55% away part of year) corresponds with lower wellbeing (64.8%). Ward 5's strong permanence (73% year-round) aligns with highest wellbeing (69.6%). This suggests that community stability and continuous presence contribute to overall wellbeing.
Exception: Ward 2 (Lukla) shows lower wellbeing despite moderate permanence, likely due to gateway stress, rapid development, and tourism pressure impacts.
Domain Scores by Ward (2025)
Comparative analysis of all 12 wellbeing domains across the 5 wards based on 520 responses with ward information
Ward-Level Overall Wellbeing Rankings
| Rank | Ward | Primary Villages | Overall Score | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Ward 5 | Namche, Thami, Thamo | 69.7% | Economic hub, highest year-round residence |
| 2nd | Ward 1 | Kharikhola Area | 67.9% | Agricultural base, strong psychological wellbeing |
| 3rd | Ward 4 | Khumjung, Khunde, Pangboche | 65.5% | Traditional villages, cultural preservation |
| 4th | Ward 3 | Main Trail villages | 61.8% | High tourism impact, government challenges |
| 5th | Ward 2 | Lukla Area | 61.2% | Gateway pressures, lowest overall wellbeing |
Ward-Level Overall Wellbeing Scores
12 Domains by Ward Comparison
Domain Score Details by Ward
| Domain | Ward 1 | Ward 2 | Ward 3 | Ward 4 | Ward 5 | Domain Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | 74.2% | 61.2% | 61.3% | 69.4% | 75.8% | 68.4% |
| Psychological Wellbeing | 86.9% | 78.2% | 77.3% | 75.0% | 78.1% | 79.1% |
| Health | 72.0% | 58.8% | 67.3% | 68.9% | 68.8% | 67.2% |
| Time Balance | 46.6% | 50.2% | 48.4% | 51.4% | 56.5% | 50.6% |
| Community | 55.0% | 45.0% | 52.0% | 54.9% | 66.5% | 54.7% |
| Social Support | 72.6% | 71.7% | 67.6% | 73.4% | 78.4% | 72.7% |
| Lifelong Learning | 78.5% | 61.4% | 63.8% | 69.9% | 70.5% | 68.8% |
| Environment | 75.5% | 70.3% | 71.6% | 72.7% | 78.5% | 73.7% |
| Government | 50.9% | 44.5% | 40.1% | 49.7% | 45.9% | 46.2% |
| Economy | 62.4% | 58.5% | 57.0% | 62.1% | 73.6% | 62.7% |
| Work | 68.2% | 64.4% | 66.9% | 68.8% | 72.3% | 68.1% |
| Tourism | 71.7% | 70.7% | 68.1% | 69.6% | 72.1% | 70.4% |
| WARD AVERAGE | 67.9% | 61.2% | 61.8% | 65.5% | 69.7% | 65.2% |
Data Source: Calculated from Nepal-Grid view.csv with proper reverse scoring (Q5,16,28,32,37,41-43)
Ward Averages: Weighted by participant count (Ward 1: 100, Ward 2: 107, Ward 3: 65, Ward 4: 151, Ward 5: 97)
Technical Note: Minor differences (≤0.35%) between ward averages and overall domain scores are normal due to different missing data patterns across wards. Overall scores use pooled responses while ward scores use stratified averages.
Green = Highest score for domain |
Red = Lowest score for domain
Key Domain Insights by Ward
Ward 1 (Kharikhola) - Strengths in Wellbeing
- Highest: Psychological Wellbeing (86.9%) - traditional lifestyle supports mental health
- Strong: Lifelong Learning (78.5%) and Environment (75.5%)
- Challenges: Time Balance (46.6%) and Government (50.9%)
Ward 2 (Lukla) - Gateway Pressures
- Lowest overall: 61.2% average - airport stress impacts across domains
- Major challenges: Government (44.5%), Community (45.0%), and Time Balance (50.2%)
- Relative strength: Psychological Wellbeing (78.2%), Social Support (71.7%), and Tourism (70.7%) despite pressures
Ward 3 (Main Trail) - Tourism Intensity
- Lowest: Government trust (40.1%) - lowest across all wards
- Challenges: Government (40.1%), Time Balance (48.4%), and Community (52.0%) despite tourism exposure
- Strengths: Psychological Wellbeing (77.3%) and Environment (71.6%)
Ward 4 (Traditional Villages) - Balanced Profile
- Consistent: Most domains near average (65.5% overall), showing stability
- Notable strengths: Psychological Wellbeing (75.0%), Social Support (73.4%), and Environment (72.7%)
- Pattern: Traditional lifestyle maintains balance across domains
Ward 5 (Namche Hub) - Economic Leadership
- Highest: Environment (78.5%), Social Support (78.4%), Psychological Wellbeing (78.1%)
- Outstanding: Highest overall wellbeing at 69.7% and Economy (73.6%)
- Challenges: Government (45.9%) and Time Balance (56.5%)
- Success factors: Economic opportunities + strong community networks
Ward-by-Ward Demographic Analysis
📊 Data Coverage
Total responses with ward information: 520 out of 560 (92.9%)
- Age (Q62): 469 responses
- Gender (Q63): 503 responses
- Marital Status (Q64): 514 responses
- Children under 18 (Q65): 514 responses
- Household size (Q66): 459 responses
- Spirituality (Q73): 516 responses
- Education (Q74): 511 responses
- Employment (Q75): Only 23 responses - Limited data available
Age Distribution by Ward (Q62)
Gender Distribution by Ward (Q63)
Marital Status by Ward (Q64)
Spirituality Levels by Ward (Q73)
Education Levels by Ward (Q74)
Children under 18 by Ward (Q65)
Household Size by Ward (Q66)
⚠️ Employment Data (Q75) - Extremely Limited
Only 23 responses out of 560 (4.1%) provided employment status information.
Ward distribution of these 23 responses:
- Ward 1: 0 responses
- Ward 2: 5 responses (40% full-time, 20% self-employed, 20% homemaker, 20% unemployed)
- Ward 3: 9 responses (88.9% self-employed, 11.1% retired)
- Ward 4: 2 responses (50% volunteer, 50% self-employed)
- Ward 5: 7 responses (71.4% self-employed, 28.6% other)
Due to extremely low response rate, employment data should not be considered representative.
Key Demographic Patterns by Ward
Ward 1 (Kharikhola Area) - 100 responses
- Age: Younger population with 33.3% aged 25-34 years
- Gender: Male-dominated (60.8% male, 39.2% female)
- Education: Lower education levels (38.5% have less than grade 9, 35.2% high school graduates)
- Children under 18: 56% have children (highest among all wards)
- Household Size: Average 4.3 members (55.6% have 3-4 members)
- Spirituality: 53.1% moderately spiritual, 24.5% very spiritual
- Marital Status: 67% married, 22.7% never married
Ward 2 (Lukla Gateway) - 107 responses
- Age: Mixed age distribution with 30.5% aged 25-34
- Gender: Balanced (50.9% female, 49.1% male)
- Education: Lowest education (42.1% less than grade 9, only 2.8% bachelor's degree)
- Children under 18: 47.7% have children
- Household Size: Average 4.3 members (44.6% have 5-6 members)
- Spirituality: 43% somewhat spiritual, 29.9% very spiritual
- Marital Status: 73.8% married
Ward 3 (Main Trail) - 65 responses
- Age: Younger working population (34.0% aged 35-44)
- Gender: Male majority (58.7% male, 41.3% female)
- Education: Higher education levels (10.8% graduate degree, 9.2% bachelor's)
- Children under 18: 42.2% have children
- Household Size: Average 4.3 members (equal distribution 3-4 and 5-6 members)
- Spirituality: 32.3% very spiritual, 33.8% not very/not at all spiritual
- Marital Status: 61.5% married, 18.5% never married
Ward 4 (Traditional Villages) - 151 responses (largest sample)
- Age: Working age dominated (32.0% aged 35-44)
- Gender: Female majority (52.8% female, 47.2% male)
- Education: Lowest education levels (45% less than grade 9, only 7.3% bachelor's)
- Children under 18: 45.6% have children
- Household Size: Average 3.9 members (45.4% have 3-4 members)
- Spirituality: Highest spirituality (49.7% very spiritual)
- Marital Status: 69.1% married
Ward 5 (Namche Hub) - 97 responses
- Age: Mixed age (31.2% aged 25-34)
- Gender: Slight male majority (53.7% male, 46.3% female)
- Education: Most educated ward (13.4% bachelor's degree, 30.9% high school graduates)
- Children under 18: 39.6% have children (lowest among all wards)
- Household Size: Smallest households (average 3.8 members, 53.5% have 3-4 members)
- Spirituality: 40% very spiritual, 30.5% moderately spiritual
- Marital Status: 69.8% married
🔍 Key Demographic Patterns
- Gender Balance: Overall balanced, but varies by ward (Ward 1: male-dominated, Ward 4: female-majority)
- Education Gradient: Ward 5 (Namche) shows highest education levels, reflecting its role as commercial hub
- Household Structure: Traditional larger households (4-5 members) in most wards, smaller in commercial areas
- Spirituality: High levels across all wards, particularly in Ward 4 (traditional villages)
- Age Distribution: Working-age population dominates all wards, youth concentration varies
📊 2022-2025 Overview Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of wellbeing indicators between 2022 and 2025 surveys in Khumbu Pasang Lhamu Rural Municipality.
1. Survey Completion Comparison
2022 Survey
(670 total)
2025 Survey
(587 total)
Change
2. Ward Distribution Comparison
2022 Ward Distribution
Total: 670 responses (4 wards)
2025 Ward Distribution
Total: 520 responses (5 wards)
📊 Data Coverage Note
2025 Survey: Total 587 responses received (valid + invalid), but only 520 responses (88.6%) included ward information.
67 responses (11.4%) did not specify their ward, limiting our ability to make accurate ward-level comparisons.
Important: The population distribution changes shown above are estimates based on available data. Actual ward coverage in 2025 should be 587 responses, but missing ward data prevents precise comparison. Village population trends should be interpreted as approximate indicators rather than exact measurements.
Ward-Level Changes
| Ward | 2022 | 2025 | Change | Trend |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 1 (Kharikhola) | Not surveyed | 100 (19.2%) | NEW | ✅ Added in 2025 |
| Ward 2 (Lukla) | 223 (33.3%) | 107 (20.6%) | -116 (-52.0%) | 📉 Major decrease |
| Ward 3 (Main Trail) | 202 (30.1%) | 65 (12.5%) | -137 (-67.8%) | 📉 Severe decrease |
| Ward 4 (Khumjung) | 105 (15.7%) | 151 (29.0%) | +46 (+43.8%) | 📈 Major increase |
| Ward 5 (Namche) | 140 (20.9%) | 97 (18.7%) | -43 (-30.7%) | 📉 Moderate decrease |
3. Domain Scores Comparison
Detailed Domain Score Changes
| Domain | 2022 | 2025 | Change | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community | 50.1% | 54.5% | +4.4% | ↑ Improved |
| Satisfaction with Life | 64.9% | 69.1% | +4.2% | ↑ Improved |
| Psychological Wellbeing | 75.5% | 78.7% | +3.2% | ↑ Improved |
| Economy | 59.7% | 62.9% | +3.2% | ↑ Improved |
| Health | 64.3% | 67.1% | +2.8% | ↑ Improved |
| Social Support | 70.2% | 72.8% | +2.6% | ↑ Improved |
| Lifelong Learning | 68.3% | 68.8% | +0.5% | ↑ Improved |
| Time Balance | 50.9% | 50.8% | -0.1% | → Stable |
| Work | 68.8% | 68.2% | -0.6% | ↓ Declined |
| Environment | 74.2% | 73.4% | -0.8% | ↓ Declined |
| Government | 51.2% | 47.1% | -4.1% | ↓ Declined |
| Tourism | 74.9% | 69.9% | -5.0% | ↓ Declined |
4. Ward-by-Ward Domain Comparison (2022 vs 2025)
Domains with Consistent Trends Across All Wards
✓ Universal Improvements
- None: No domain improved across all 4 wards
↓ Common Declines
- Government: All wards declined
- Tourism: All wards declined
Ward-Specific Performance (2022 → 2025)
Ward 2
Overall Change: -3.6%
Best Improvement: Economy (+3.5%)
Largest Decline: Lifelong Learning (-12.2%)
4 domains improved, 8 declined
Ward 3
Overall Change: -2.3%
Best Improvement: Psychological (+4.1%)
Largest Decline: Government (-10.1%)
5 domains improved, 7 declined
Ward 4
Overall Change: +1.1%
Best Improvement: Lifelong Learning (+4.6%)
Largest Decline: Government (-6.9%)
8 domains improved, 4 declined
Ward 5
Overall Change: +5.1% ⭐
Best Improvement: Life Satisfaction (+13.4%)
Largest Decline: Government (-8.2%)
10 domains improved, 2 declined
Key Observations
- Ward 5 shows strongest overall improvement (+5.1%), with 10 of 12 domains improving
- Ward 2 experienced overall decline (-3.6%), with only 4 of 12 domains improving
- Government domain declined uniformly across all wards, with Ward 3 showing the steepest drop (-10.1%)
- Tourism domain declined uniformly across all wards, despite generally positive attitudes
- Mixed trends across domains: No single domain improved consistently across all wards
Detailed Ward Comparisons
⚠️ Important Note on Data Comparisons:
• Ward 1 is excluded from these comparisons as no data was collected for Ward 1 in the 2022 survey
• The SNPBZ Satisfaction domain (present in 2022) has been excluded from all calculations to ensure consistent comparison with 2025 data
• As a result, the 2022 average scores shown here differ from those in the 2022 report (p.65, Table 9), which included SNPBZ Satisfaction in the overall calculations
Ward 2 Domain Changes
| Domain | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | 66.5 | 61.2 | -5.3 |
| Psychological | 77.5 | 78.2 | +0.7 |
| Health | 65.8 | 58.8 | -7.0 |
| Time Balance | 51.4 | 50.2 | -1.2 |
| Lifelong Learning | 73.6 | 61.4 | -12.2 |
| Community | 41.8 | 45.0 | +3.2 |
| Social Support | 70.8 | 71.7 | +0.9 |
| Environment | 73.9 | 70.3 | -3.6 |
| Government | 50.3 | 44.5 | -5.8 |
| Economy | 55.0 | 58.5 | +3.5 |
| Work | 73.1 | 64.4 | -8.7 |
| Tourism | 78.1 | 70.7 | -7.4 |
| Average | 64.8 | 61.2 | -3.6 |
Ward 3 Domain Changes
| Domain | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | 66.3 | 61.3 | -5.0 |
| Psychological | 73.2 | 77.3 | +4.1 |
| Health | 64.2 | 67.3 | +3.1 |
| Time Balance | 48.2 | 48.4 | +0.2 |
| Lifelong Learning | 65.1 | 63.8 | -1.3 |
| Community | 55.8 | 52.0 | -3.8 |
| Social Support | 71.0 | 67.6 | -3.4 |
| Environment | 76.7 | 71.6 | -5.1 |
| Government | 50.2 | 40.1 | -10.1 |
| Economy | 61.3 | 57.0 | -4.3 |
| Work | 64.4 | 66.9 | +2.5 |
| Tourism | 72.9 | 68.1 | -4.8 |
| Average | 64.1 | 61.8 | -2.3 |
Ward 4 Domain Changes
| Domain | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | 68.5 | 69.4 | +0.9 |
| Psychological | 73.8 | 75.0 | +1.2 |
| Health | 66.1 | 68.9 | +2.8 |
| Time Balance | 50.7 | 51.4 | +0.7 |
| Lifelong Learning | 65.3 | 69.9 | +4.6 |
| Community | 52.2 | 54.9 | +2.7 |
| Social Support | 69.1 | 73.4 | +4.3 |
| Environment | 71.2 | 72.7 | +1.5 |
| Government | 56.6 | 49.7 | -6.9 |
| Economy | 60.5 | 62.1 | +1.6 |
| Work | 65.4 | 68.8 | +3.4 |
| Tourism | 73.8 | 69.6 | -4.2 |
| Average | 64.4 | 65.5 | +1.1 |
Ward 5 Domain Changes
| Domain | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | 62.4 | 75.8 | +13.4 |
| Psychological | 75.8 | 78.1 | +2.3 |
| Health | 59.3 | 68.8 | +9.5 |
| Time Balance | 54.6 | 56.5 | +1.9 |
| Lifelong Learning | 66.0 | 70.5 | +4.5 |
| Community | 53.5 | 66.5 | +13.0 |
| Social Support | 66.7 | 78.4 | +11.7 |
| Environment | 72.2 | 78.5 | +6.3 |
| Government | 54.1 | 45.9 | -8.2 |
| Economy | 65.3 | 73.6 | +8.3 |
| Work | 71.1 | 72.3 | +1.2 |
| Tourism | 73.9 | 72.1 | -1.8 |
| Average | 64.6 | 69.7 | +5.1 |
5. Key Implications Summary
📈 Encouraging Trends
- Community connections are evolving (+4.4% overall) with notable strengthening in Ward 2
- Life satisfaction continues to improve (+4.2%) demonstrating community adaptability
- Mental health shows positive trajectory (+3.2%) across all wards
- Economic conditions are stabilizing (+3.2%) with gradual improvements
- Ward 1 inclusion provides more comprehensive regional insights
📊 Areas for Attention
- Tourism needs support (-5.0%) to align with community needs
- Government engagement opportunities exist (-4.1%) for enhanced collaboration
- Geographic participation varies - Ward 3 participation shifted to other areas
- Survey participation adjusted by 14.1%, reflecting changing demographics
- Environmental stewardship remains stable with minor variation (-0.8%)
🔍 Key Insights
1. Geographic Dynamics: The shift in participation from Ward 3 to Ward 4 reflects natural population movements and improved survey accessibility. Ward 1's inclusion enriches the overall understanding of the region.
2. Tourism Evolution: While tourism shows room for improvement (-5.0%), the community maintains a balanced perspective on tourism's role, with the economy showing gradual strengthening.
3. Community Self-Reliance: As formal governance structures evolve, communities are demonstrating increased self-organization and mutual support, reflecting adaptive capacity.
4. Wellbeing Foundations: Despite various transitions, psychological wellbeing (+3.2%) and life satisfaction (+4.2%) improvements highlight the community's fundamental strength and positive outlook.
🏔️ Tourism Comparison 2022-2025
Comprehensive analysis of tourism satisfaction, preferences, and trends between 2022 and 2025 surveys.
1. Tourism Satisfaction Overall Scores
2. Tourism Domain Questions Comparison (Q51-Q56, excluding Q52)
| Question | 2022 | 2025 | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q51 Satisfaction with tourism | 72.0% | 60.6% | -11.4% |
| Q53 Local jobs created by tourism | 80.3% | 81.0% | +0.7% |
| Q54 Tourism promotes local entrepreneurship | 71.3% | 79.0% | +7.7% |
| Q55 Tourism promotes local culture | 69.6% | 68.2% | -1.4% |
| Q56 Policies for sustainable use of resource for tourism | 68.1% | 60.9% | -7.2% |
| Tourism promotes local product production (2022 only) | 71.8% | N/A | - |
| Average (Q51,53-56) | 74.9% | 69.9% | -5.0% |
3. Visitor Preferences (Q52)
2022 - Tourist Numbers vs Pre-COVID
82.6% preferred tourist numbers to increase compared to pre-COVID levels
2025 - Desired Tourist Numbers
92.2% want MORE tourists (541 valid responses)
4. Tourism Trends Analysis
Positive Trends
- Economic Benefits Recognized: Local jobs (+0.7%) and entrepreneurship (+7.7%) scores improved
- Strong Demand for Growth: 92.2% want more tourists (up from perception baseline)
- Economic Integration: Tourism remains vital for local economy despite satisfaction decline
Challenges Emerging
- Satisfaction Decline: Overall satisfaction dropped 11.4% (Q51)
- Policy Concerns: Sustainable resource policies score fell 7.2%
- Cultural Impact: Slight decline in cultural promotion (-1.4%)
Key Insight: The Tourism Paradox
While tourism satisfaction has declined by 5.0% overall, the community's desire for MORE tourists has increased dramatically. This paradox reflects:
- Economic Necessity: Despite challenges, tourism remains crucial for livelihoods
- Quality vs Quantity: Community seeks better tourism management, not less tourism
- Policy Gap: The 7.2% decline in sustainable resource policies indicates need for better tourism governance
- Entrepreneurial Opportunity: 7.7% improvement in entrepreneurship promotion shows positive economic adaptation
Tourism Impact Analysis
The Tourism Paradox
The data reveals a profound contradiction at the heart of Khumbu's development:
- 92.2% want tourism to increase
- 70.2% struggle financially sometimes or more
- 62.9% Economy domain score (lowest)
- 14.0% cite outmigration as greatest threat
This paradox suggests economic challenges and incentive are likely the main drivers of tourism growth.
Tourism Support vs. Economic Pressure
Tourism Perception by Domain
| Tourism Aspect | Score | Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Creates jobs for locals | 81.0% | Strong economic incentive |
| Promotes local entrepreneurship | 79.0% | Opportunities recognized |
| Promotes local culture | 68.2% | Cultural concerns emerging |
| Sustainable resource use | 60.9% | Sustainability questioned |
| Satisfaction with tourism | 60.6% | Good satisfaction |
⚠️ Critical Finding: Forced Choice
Communities support more tourism not because they want it, but because with the lowest Economy domain score at 62.9%, they have no economic alternative. The moderate scores for cultural promotion (68.2%) and sustainability (60.9%) reveal some reservations about tourism's long-term impacts, even as economic necessity forces support.
Tourism Satisfaction Analysis
Q51: Tourism Satisfaction (2025 Data)
Average Score: 60.6% satisfaction
Response Rate: 452 valid responses out of 560 surveys (80.7% response rate)
Tourism Domain Overview:
- Tourism Domain Score: 69.9%
- Rank: 4th highest domain after Psychological Wellbeing (78.7%), Environment (73.4%), and Social Support (72.8%)
Q52: Tourist Number Preferences - Detailed Distribution
Sample Size: 541 valid responses out of 560 surveys (96.6% response rate)
Ward-by-Ward Tourist Preferences
| Ward | Want More Tourists | Stay Same | Want Fewer | No Opinion | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 1 (Kharikhola) | 99.0% | 0% | 1.0% | 0% | 97 |
| Ward 2 (Lukla) | 98.1% | 0% | 0.9% | 0.9% | 106 |
| Ward 3 (Phakding) | 85.9% | 3.1% | 3.1% | 7.8% | 64 |
| Ward 4 (Khumjung) | 88.2% | 4.2% | 2.1% | 5.6% | 144 |
| Ward 5 (Namche) | 90.4% | 4.3% | 1.1% | 4.3% | 94 |
Key Insights
- Overwhelming Support: 92.2% of respondents want more tourists, indicating strong economic dependence on tourism
- Remote Areas Most Supportive: Ward 1 (99.0%) and Ward 2 (98.1%) show near-unanimous support for increased tourism
- Main Trail More Cautious: Ward 3 (85.9%) shows relatively lower support, possibly due to direct exposure to tourism impacts
- Minimal Opposition: Only 1.7% want fewer tourists, suggesting economic needs outweigh concerns
- Economic Driver: The 60.6% satisfaction score combined with 92.2% wanting more tourists suggests satisfaction issues but economic necessity drives support
Cultural Tourism Contradiction Analysis
The Paradox:
While 73 respondents (14.0%) identified "outmigration of Sherpas and loss of culture" as a major threat, the community still shows strong support for tourism (60.6% satisfaction from Q51). This reveals a complex relationship between economic dependence on tourism and cultural preservation concerns.
Tourism Support vs Cultural Concerns by Ward
Ward-Specific Tourism Support (Q52):
- Ward 1 (Kharikhola): 99.0% want more tourists - Gateway area seeks expanded tourism development
- Ward 2 (Lukla): 98.1% want more tourists - Gateway community depends on tourism
- Ward 3 (Phakding): 85.9% want more tourists - Trail communities show more caution
- Ward 4 (Khumjung): 88.2% want more tourists - Traditional villages balance preservation with development
- Ward 5 (Namche): 90.4% want more tourists - Main hub despite experiencing most impacts
The Cultural-Tourism Paradox Explained
The Core Contradiction:
Economic Reality
92.2% want MORE tourists
Ward 1: 99.0% support increase
Ward 2: 98.1% support increase
Cultural Concern
14.0% cite outmigration as threat
73 cite outmigration threat
17 worry about non-Sherpa businesses
Explaining the Paradox:
- Economic Incentives: With 70.2% experiencing financial challenges sometimes or more, tourism provides an important income source with potential for growth
- Most Supportive: Ward 1 (99%) keen to rebuild overnight visitation lost to road construction while Ward 2 (98%) seeks increased arrivals as the Municipal gateway and commercial hub.
- Traditional Areas More Cautious: Ward 3 & 4 show slightly more reservation (85-88%)
- Out-migration: challenges linked to business and employment competition, including access to investment capital, causes locals to leave for Kathmandu and overseas, accelerating cultural loss.
- Balancing Act: More tourism may impact culture, but it also provides economic opportunities that help retain population
Critical Insight:
The paradox reveals a community navigating between economic improvement and cultural preservation. The strong support for tourism growth (92.2%) despite outmigration concerns (14.0%) suggests that economic opportunities, while present, still have room for enhancement. This reflects a community actively seeking to balance economic development with cultural values, recognizing that tourism provides important livelihoods while acknowledging the need for sustainable practices.
🚁 Helicopter Operations Analysis (Excluding Ward 1)
Q60: Commercial Helicopter Operations Support
"Commercial helicopter flights provide an important visitor service and should be allowed to operate freely from Gorak Shep, Lobuche, Gokyo, Periche, etc. to Lukla."
⚠️ Analysis Note: Ward 1 (Kharikhola) is excluded from this analysis as helicopters typically fly over and rarely land in this lower altitude area, making their responses less relevant to operational impacts.
Overall Community Response (449 responses, excluding Ward 1)
Opposition outweighs support by 12.1 percentage points
Ward-by-Ward Helicopter Opposition Analysis
Ward-Level Opposition Breakdown (Wards 2-5)
| Ward | Oppose | Support | Neutral | No Opinion | Net Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ward 5 (Namche/Thami) | 66.0% | 20.6% | 11.3% | 2.1% | -45.4% |
| Ward 3 (Phakding) | 43.8% | 29.7% | 23.4% | 3.1% | -14.1% |
| Ward 4 (Khumjung) | 37.2% | 34.5% | 20.9% | 7.4% | -2.7% |
| Ward 2 (Lukla) | 37.7% | 48.1% | 9.4% | 4.7% | +10.4% |
Key Patterns:
- Tourism Centers Most Opposed: Ward 5 (Namche) shows 66% opposition - highest tourism activity correlates with strongest opposition
- Trail Communities Concerned: Ward 3 (Phakding) with 43.8% opposition experiences direct noise and disruption
- Gateway Divided: Ward 2 (Lukla) is the only ward with net support (+10.4%), balancing economic benefits with impacts
- Remote Areas Balanced: Ward 4 (Khumjung) nearly split, valuing emergency access while concerned about impacts
Response Details by Ward
Ward 2 (Lukla Area) - Only Supportive Ward
- Support: 48.1% (Strongly Agree: 13.2%, Agree: 34.9%)
- Oppose: 37.7% (Disagree: 12.3%, Strongly Disagree: 25.5%)
- Context: Gateway location benefits economically from helicopter operations while experiencing noise impacts
Ward 3 (Phakding Area) - Trail Communities
- Oppose: 43.8% (Disagree: 10.9%, Strongly Disagree: 32.8%)
- Support: 29.7% (Strongly Agree: 10.9%, Agree: 18.8%)
- Context: Main trekking trail experiences frequent helicopter noise and safety concerns
Ward 4 (Khumjung Area) - Traditional Villages
- Oppose: 37.2% (Disagree: 14.9%, Strongly Disagree: 22.3%)
- Support: 34.5% (Strongly Agree: 6.1%, Agree: 28.4%)
- Context: Nearly balanced views reflect tension between emergency access needs and cultural preservation
Ward 5 (Namche/Thami) - Strongest Opposition
- Oppose: 66.0% (Disagree: 36.1%, Strongly Disagree: 29.9%)
- Support: 20.6% (Strongly Agree: 2.1%, Agree: 18.6%)
- Context: Main tourism hub experiences highest helicopter traffic and noise concerns
Open-Ended Responses: Community Voices on Helicopters (Q57)
Analysis of 560 responses to "What makes you happy about where you live?"
7 responses (1.2%) mentioned helicopters:
Negative Sentiments (4 responses):
- "100% helicopter business should be removed" - Strong opposition to commercial operations
- "Noise pollution, especially from helicopters" - Environmental impact concern
- "Ban helicopters except for emergencies" - Support only for rescue operations
- "Helicopter disruption to daily life" - Quality of life impact
Positive Sentiments (2 responses):
- "Good transportation including helicopters" - Valued as transport option
- "Support helicopter services for tourists" - Tourism service perspective
Economic Concern (1 response):
- "Helicopters too expensive for locals" - Accessibility issue for residents
Key Insights from Open-Ended Responses:
- While only 1.2% spontaneously mentioned helicopters, those who did expressed strong opinions
- Negative sentiments (57%) outweigh positive (29%), aligning with Q60 quantitative data
- Noise pollution is the primary complaint, affecting quality of life
- Some support exists for emergency/rescue operations only
- Economic accessibility for locals is a concern
Survey Demographics Overview
Age Distribution
Education Levels
Marital Status
Household Size Distribution
Key Demographic Characteristics
- Age Structure: Working-age population dominates (25-44 years: 59.2%)
- Education: 40.7% have less than grade 9 education, 8.8% have bachelor's degree or higher
- Marital Status: 68.8% married, 21.2% never married
- Household Size: Average 4.3 members per household
- Spirituality: 73.4% identify as moderately to very spiritual
- Employment: Majority self-employed (limited data available)
📊 Data Coverage by Question
- Age (Q62): 469 responses (83.8%)
- Gender (Q63): 503 responses (89.8%)
- Marital Status (Q64): 514 responses (91.8%)
- Children under 18 (Q65): 514 responses (91.8%)
- Household size (Q66): 459 responses (82.0%)
- Spirituality (Q73): 516 responses (92.1%)
- Education (Q74): 511 responses (91.3%)
- Employment (Q75): Only 23 responses (4.1%) - Insufficient data
Key Indicators and Critical Issues
Critical Issues by Domain
🏛️ Government (47.1%) - Lowest Score
- Only 24.1% believe corruption is not widespread
- 54.0% lack confidence in national government (No confidence 32.5% + Not very much 21.5%)
- Trust deficit undermining governance effectiveness
⏰ Time Balance (50.8%) - Second Lowest
- 62.1% feel life is too rushed
- Only 32.5% have adequate spare time
- Work-life balance challenges affect wellbeing
🤝 Community (54.5%) - Third Lowest
- 70.5% volunteer rarely or never (Never 23.8% + Once/year 29.6% + Once/6 months 17.1%)
- 53.8% trust only some/few neighbors (Some 27.7% + Few 23.2% + None 2.9%)
- Social capital needs strengthening
💰 Economy (62.9%) - Financial Challenges
- 55.2% experience financial stress
- 70.2% struggle financially sometimes or more
- Economic pressures drive tourism dependency
Strongest Indicators
🧠 Psychological Wellbeing (78.7%) - Highest Score
- 90.5% feel life is purposeful
- 91.6% optimistic about future
- Strong mental resilience despite challenges
🌿 Environment (73.4%) - Strong Performance
- 84.9% satisfied with nature access
- 75% say environment is healthy
- High environmental awareness
❤️ Social Support (72.8%) - Community Strength
- 85.4% satisfied with relationships
- 78.6% rarely/never feel lonely
- Strong traditional support systems
Critical Issues Comparison
🎯 Priority Areas for Intervention
- Governance Reform: Address corruption perceptions and build public trust
- Economic Diversification: Reduce over-reliance on tourism through alternative income sources
- Time Management Support: Help community members balance work and life demands
- Community Engagement: Increase volunteerism and strengthen social bonds
- Financial Literacy: Support households in managing financial stress
📝 Open-Ended Questions Analysis
Analysis of community responses to open-ended questions about place attachment, aspirations, and wellbeing sources.
Q59: "What do you love about where you live?"
Response Rate: 67.5% (378/560)
Sample Responses:
- • "Air quality good, no disease at all no too much gathered people, no tension enjoying with nature" (2 respondents)
- • "Good weather and climate. Fresh air. Good environment."
- • "Tourism area, getting job, same same religion of Sherpa and Tamang"
- • "मलाई सबैभन्दा मन पर्ने यहाँको पिउने पानी र हावा हो" (I love the drinking water and air here the most)
- • "Natural environment" (multiple mentions)
- • "Sherpa culture" (repeated theme)
Q59SA2: "What do you imagine for where you live?"
Response Rate: 65.4% (366/560)
Sample Responses:
- • "Better airport runway increase, tourist view tower, Sherpa, Tamang, rai and different caste cultural museum, sports places increase"
- • "सुन्दर पर्यटन गाउँ" (Beautiful tourism village) (6 respondents)
- • "Facilitated hospital" (3 respondents)
- • "Good electricity" (3 respondents)
- • "Sherpa culture is getting lost" (2 respondents expressing concern)
- • Infrastructure desires: hospitals, roads, electricity networks
Q59SA3: "What do you want to retain?"
Response Rate: 56.4% (316/560)
Sample Responses:
- • "Culture and language" (3 respondents)
- • "Rules and policies to look after the environment"
- • "Local people do get job eat and stay here"
- • "Good hospitality for potters" (2 respondents)
- • "ब्यबस्थित पर्यटन गाउँ" (Well-managed tourism village) (2 respondents)
- • "No big earthquake again, every fine ok" (2 respondents)
Q77SA: "In one word, what makes you happy?"
Response Rate: 78.6% (440/560)
Sample Responses:
- • "Family" (91 respondents - overwhelmingly the top response)
- • "Good health" (28 respondents)
- • "Peace of mind" (4 respondents)
- • "Money and family" (3 respondents)
- • "Working in airport and in shop"
- • "Eating favourite food"
Key Insights from Open-Ended Responses
- Environmental Pride: "Environment" dominates what people love, showing deep connection to natural surroundings
- Infrastructure Aspirations: Hospital and road development are top priorities for the future
- Cultural Preservation: Culture and language preservation are paramount when asked what to retain
- Family-Centered Wellbeing: Family is the overwhelming source of happiness (91/440), followed by health and financial security
- Balanced Development: Community seeks modern amenities while preserving Sherpa identity and environmental quality
Word Cloud Annotations:
- Local: Refers to indigenous Sherpa residents and their culture, distinguishing from outsiders/migrants
- Self satisfaction: Personal fulfillment and contentment with one's life achievements
- Sherpa culture: Traditional customs, practices, and way of life specific to the Sherpa community
- Fresh air/Air quality: Clean mountain air, free from pollution - a highly valued environmental asset
- Local people: Indigenous community members vs. seasonal workers or new settlers
- Peace of mind: Mental tranquility and freedom from worry