<p>Calls to expand the global Protected Area (PA) network to halt biodiversity loss have considerable social implications, especially for rural communities resident in or around them. Particularly in the Global South, where power imbalances between communities and conservation authorities can be more acute, PA governance approaches and limits on livelihood activities vary. Employing a theoretical framework integrating political ecology, access theory, and the Sustainable Livelihoods model, I profiled the livelihoods of households in Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area (ACA), with a more decentralized governance model, and Sagarmatha National Park (SNP), with a more centralized management approach. In 2014, 705 household questionnaires were collected, alongside 70 interviews for cross-methods triangulation. Livelihood scores were significantly higher in ACA, to which the park’s co-management approach has contributed through the creation of social capital, or influence. Linear regression models found that larger households and access to income from tourism best explained higher household livelihood scores, with revenue from livestock making an essential contribution in ACA but not SNP. Despite significant constitutional changes in Nepal since the data were collected, the relationship between PA governance and local livelihoods remains a critical issue for conservation in the country, the region, and the world. Access to influence, via involvement in PA governance, can improve access to multiple asset classes and therefore contribute to more positive socio-economic outcomes. In the context of achieving protected area targets in a socially-just manner, and in generating and maintaining social support for their governance, including and empowering local communities is therefore essential.</p>