Even after 30 years of strict de jure protection, today's de facto extraction of products from Nepal's Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP) and their great economic importance to local households suggests that this reality should be explicitly internalised in managing this world heritage park. Several studies have quantified local people's use of protected areas and estimated the value of such areas to them. However, few studies incorporate economic analyses to investigate the effect of management interventions on local communities' resource use and collection behaviour. In Nepal, buffer zones and especially buffer zone community forestry are seen as means to define and demarcate places, where local people may legally extract goods that are either identical to or relevant substitutes for products that are collected in protected areas. The intention is to resolve park-people conflicts over resource use. This article presents the findings of an in-depth study of the importance of natural resources to the livelihoods of 18 households. One village was located inside RCNP with no realistic alternatives to Park resources, while the other is located in the buffer zone with equal distance to the Park, a national forest and their community forest. For each household, the collection of products, allocation of time, and purchase and sale of goods were recorded daily through 12 consecutive months and economic values were calculated on the basis of local market prices and recorded quantities. The study shows that products from RCNP are of great importance to the livelihoods of local people. Furthermore, we find that products collected in the national forest substitute products from the Park, while the substitution effect of the community forest is small. Accordingly, the study illustrates that, irrespective of buffer zone community forestry, there is still a gap between local people's need for supplementing natural resources and their rights to satisfy them on a legal basis, which is likely to be unsustainable in the longer term. This calls for a thorough evaluation of actual park-people relations and how these may be improved through local participation that goes beyond the current form of buffer zone community forestry and the admitted 7-14 annual days of open access grass cutting within the park.