Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T22:17:10.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using Forest Cover Maps and Local People’s Perceptions to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Community-based Ecotourism for Forest Conservation in Chambok (Cambodia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 January 2019

Pichdara Lonn Open the ORCID record for Pichdara Lonn [Opens in a new window] ,
Nobuya Mizoue ,
Tetsuji Ota ,
Tsuyoshi Kajisa  and
Shigejiro Yoshida
Pichdara Lonn
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Bioresource and Bioenvironmental Sciences, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
Nobuya Mizoue*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
Tetsuji Ota
Affiliation:
Institute of Decision Science for a Sustainable Society, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
Tsuyoshi Kajisa
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima 890-8580, Japan
Shigejiro Yoshida
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University, Fukuoka 819-0395, Japan
*
Author for correspondence: Dr Nobuya Mizoue, Email: mizoue@agr.kyushu-u.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Increasing attention has been given to evaluating the effectiveness of forest conservation projects, but it is not well known whether different methods yield similar results when evaluating changes in forest resources. The present study compares forest cover maps and local people’s perceptions for evaluating the effectiveness of the Chambok community-based ecotourism (CBET) programme in Cambodia. We assessed forest cover changes from 2000 to 2012 using published global maps and used a covariate matching method to compare forest sites in CBET and non-CBET areas. We also analysed local people’s perceptions of forest resource changes by interviewing 174 households. The forest cover maps showed that the Chambok CBET was effective at reducing deforestation, although the outcome was not completely robust to unobserved heterogeneity. Local people’s perceptions concurred with the effectiveness observed in the forest cover maps, in that 64% of the people perceived that forest resources increased and 75% thought that the local community could protect its own forest resources. We conclude that the Chambok CBET performed effectively for forest conservation and suggest that mixed-method approaches are essential for evaluating the effectiveness of conservation programmes.

Keywords

covariate matchingecotourismforest coverlocal perceptionsremote sensingresource accessibility
Type
Research Paper
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 46 , Special Issue 2: Thematic Section: Forests in Flux , June 2019 , pp. 111 - 117
Copyright
© Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allendorf, TD, Aung, M, Songer, M (2012) Using residents’ perceptions to improve park–people relationships in Chatthin Wildlife Sanctuary, Myanmar. Journal of Environmental Management 99: 36–43.Google Scholar
Andam, KS, Ferraro, PJ, Pfaff, A, Sanchez-Azofeifa, GA, Robalino, JA (2008) Measuring the effectiveness of protected area networks in reducing deforestation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105(42): 16089–16094.Google Scholar
Bennett, NJ (2016) Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30(3): 582–592.Google Scholar
Blackman, A (2013) Evaluating forest conservation policies in developing countries using remote sensing data: an introduction and practical guide. Forest Policy and Economics 34: 1–16.Google Scholar
Blackman, A, Pfaff, A, Robalino, J (2015) Paper park performance: Mexico’s natural protected areas in the 1990s. Global Environmental Change 31: 50–61.Google Scholar
Brandt, JS, Kuemmerle, T, Li, H, Ren, G, Zhu, J, Radeloff, VC (2012) Using Landsat imagery to map forest change in southwest China in response to the national logging ban and ecotourism development. Remote Sensing of Environment 121: 358–369.Google Scholar
Davis, KF, Yu, K, Rulli, MC, Pichdara, L, D’Odorico, P (2015) Accelerated deforestation driven by large-scale land acquisitions in Cambodia. Nature Geoscience 8(10): 772–775.Google Scholar
Daw, TM, Robinson, JAN, Graham, NA (2011) Perceptions of trends in Seychelles artisanal trap fisheries: comparing catch monitoring, underwater visual census and fishers’ knowledge. Environmental Conservation 38(1): 75–88.Google Scholar
Griscom, B, Ganz, D, Virgilio, N, Price, F, Hayward, J, Cortez, R et al. (2009). The Hidden Frontier of Forest Degradation: A Review of the Science, Policy and Practice of Reducing Degradation Emissions. Arlington, VA, USA: The Nature Conservancy.Google Scholar
Hansen, MC, Potapov, PV, Moore, R, Hancher, M, Turubanova, SA, Tyukavina, A et al. (2013) High-resolution global maps of 21st-century forest cover change. Science (New York, NY) 342(6160): 850–853.Google Scholar
Hernandez Cruz, RE, Baltazar, EB, Gomez, GM, Estrada Lugo, EIJ (2005) Social adaptation ecotourism in the Lacandon forest. Annals of Tourism Research 32(3): 610–627.Google Scholar
Joppa, LN, Pfaff, A (2009) High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS One 4(12): e8273.Google Scholar
Joppa, LN, Pfaff, A (2011) Global protected area impacts. Proceedings Biological Sciences 278(1712): 1633–1638.Google Scholar
Kiss, A (2004) Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(5): 232–237.Google Scholar
Leleu, K, Alban, F, Pelletier, D, Charbonnel, E, Letourneur, Y, Boudouresque, CF (2012) Fishers’ perceptions as indicators of the performance of marine protected areas (MPAs). Marine Policy 36(2): 414–422.Google Scholar
Keele, LJ (2014) Package ‘rbounds’. [www document]. URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.204.8214&rep=rep1&type=pdfGoogle Scholar
Lund, JF, Burgess, ND, Chamshama, SA, Dons, K, Isango, JA, Kajembe, GC et al. (2015) Mixed method approaches to evaluate conservation impact: evidence from decentralized forest management in Tanzania. Environmental Conservation 42(2): 162–170.Google Scholar
Margono, BA, Turubanova, S, Zhuravleva, I, Potapov, P, Tyukavina, A, Baccini, A et al. (2012) Mapping and monitoring deforestation and forest degradation in Sumatra (Indonesia) using Landsat time series data sets from 1990 to 2010. Environmental Research Letters 7(3): 034010.Google Scholar
Men, P (2006) Tourism, poverty, and income distribution: Chambok community-based ecotourism development, Kirirom National Park, Kompong Speu Province, Cambodia. Journal of GMS Development Studies 3: 25–40.Google Scholar
Miranda, JJ, Corral, L, Blackman, A, Asner, G, Lima, E (2016) Effects of protected areas on forest cover change and local communities: evidence from the Peruvian Amazon. World Development 78: 288–307.Google Scholar
Min-Venditti, AA, Moore, GW, Fleischman, F (2017) What policies improve forest cover? A systematic review of research from Mesoamerica. Global Environmental Change 47: 21–27.Google Scholar
Ministry of Planning (2013) Poverty in Cambodia – New Approach: Redefining the Poverty Line. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Planning.Google Scholar
Nagendra, H (2007) Drivers of reforestation in human-dominated forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(39): 15218–15223.Google Scholar
Nagendra, H, Lucas, R, Honrado, JP, Jongman, RH, Tarantino, C, Adamo, M, Mairota, P (2013) Remote sensing for conservation monitoring: assessing protected areas, habitat extent, habitat condition, species diversity, and threats. Ecological Indicators 33: 45–59.Google Scholar
National Institute of Statistics of Cambodia (2008) Statistical Year Book 2008. Phnom Penh, Cambodia: Ministry of Planning.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E, Nagendra, H (2006) Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103(51): 19224–19231.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2017) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing [www document]. URL www.R-project.orgGoogle Scholar
Rann, R (2013) Ecotourism in Cambodia up 9.7 per cent [www document]. URL www.phnompenhpost.com/business/ecotourism-cambodia-97-centGoogle Scholar
Rasolofoson, RA, Ferraro, PJ, Jenkins, CN, Jones, JP (2015). Effectiveness of community forest management at reducing deforestation in Madagascar. Biological Conservation 184: 271–277.Google Scholar
Scullion, J, Thomas, CW, Vogt, KA, Perez-Maqueo, O, Logsdon, MG (2011) Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environmental Conservation 38(4): 426–434.Google Scholar
Sekhon, JS (2007). Alternative Balance Metrics for Bias Reduction in Matching Methods for Causal Inference. Berkeley, CA, USA: Survey Research Center, University of California.Google Scholar
Sekhon, JS (2015) Package ‘Matching’ [www document]. URL http://dirichlet.mat.puc.cl/web/packages/Matching/Matching.pdfGoogle Scholar
Souza, CM, Roberts, DA, Cochrane, MA (2005) Combining spectral and spatial information to map canopy damage from selective logging and forest fires. Remote Sensing of Environment 98(2): 329–343.Google Scholar
Twongyirwe, R, Bithell, M, Richards, KS, Rees, W (2017) Do livelihood typologies influence local perceptions of forest cover change? Evidence from a tropical forested and non-forested rural landscape in western Uganda. Journal of Rural Studies 50: 12–29.Google Scholar
Va, M, Om, S, Touch, M (2013) Award winner: Chambok community based ecotourism project [www document]. URL www.to-do-contest.org/preistraeger-en/pdf/kambodscha-2014-e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yasué, M, Kaufman, L, Vincent, ACJ (2010) Assessing ecological changes in and around marine reserves using community perceptions and biological surveys. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20(4): 407–418.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Lonn et al. supplementary material

Lonn et al. supplementary material 1

Download Lonn et al. supplementary material(File)
File 92.2 KB