Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-45s75 Total loading time: 0.459 Render date: 2021-12-02T02:17:33.604Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2008

PAMELA D. MCELWEE*
Affiliation:
School of Global Studies, Arizona State University, PO Box 875102, Tempe AZ 85287-5102, USA
*
*Correspondence: Dr Pamela McElwee Tel: +1 480 727 0736 Fax: +1 480 727 8292 e-mail: pamela.mcelwee@asu.edu

Summary

Much research has focused on understanding the importance of forest environmental income in different communities and highlighting key socioeconomic characteristics of forest-dependent households. This paper examines the economic importance of forests among rural agriculturalists in Vietnam. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey of 104 households in five study villages in Ha Tinh province in north central Vietnam surrounding the Ke Go Nature Reserve (KGNR). Variables such as migration status of the household, age, income class and landholdings were used to identify characteristics of households with high forest income in both absolute and relative terms. More than half of households reported receiving forest environmental income in cash. Socioeconomic variables were compared between forest cash income (FCI) households and non-FCI households. Non-FCI households had more alternative income sources from wage labour and livestock, while FCI households were significantly younger, tended to live closer to the forest and had larger landholdings. Contrary to other research on forest use, the households deriving the most forest income in both absolute and relative terms were not the poorer households, but those in the middle class. These findings highlight the need for conservation and development projects to pay attention to the specific household factors that influence forest use, rather than relying on assumptions that poverty and forests are always linked.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2008

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

Ambrose-Oji, B. (2003) The contribution of NTFPs to the livelihoods of the ‘forest poor’: evidence from the tropical forest zone of south-west Cameroon. International Forestry Review 5: 106117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelsen, A. & Wunder, S. (2003). Exploring the Forest-Poverty Link: Key Concepts, Issues and Research Implications. Bogor, Indonesia: CIFOR.Google Scholar
Arnold, J.E.M. & Ruiz-Pérez, M. (2001) Can non-timber forest products match tropical forest conservation and development objectives? Ecological Economics 39: 437447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AusAid (2002) Vietnam Poverty Analysis. Sydney, Australia: Australian Agency for International Development.Google Scholar
Belcher, B. (2005) Forest product markets, forests and poverty reduction. International Forestry Review 7: 8289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belcher, B., Ruiz-Pérez, M. & Achidiawan, R. (2005) Global patterns and trends in the use and management of commercial NTFPs: implication for livelihoods and conservation. World Development 33: 14351452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bista, S. & Webb, E.L. (2006) Collection and marketing of non-timber forest products in the far western hills of Nepal. Environmental Conservation 33: 244255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byron, R. & Arnold, M. (1999) What futures for the people of the tropical forests? World Development 27: 789805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavendish, W. (2000) Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28: 19792003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coomes, O.T., Barham, B.L. & Takasaki, Y. (2004) Targeting conservation-development initiatives in tropical forests: insights from analyses of rain forest use and economic reliance among Amazonian peasants. Ecological Economics 51: 4764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Counsell, T. & Rice, S., eds. (1992) The Rainforest Harvest: Sustainable Strategies for Saving the Tropical Forests. London, UK: Friends of the Earth.Google Scholar
Quang, Dang Viet & Anh, Tran Nam (2006) Commercial collection of NTFPs and households living in or near the forests: case study in Que, Con Cuong and Ma, Tuong Duong, Nghe An, Vietnam. Ecological Economics 60: 6574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Merode, E., Homewood, K. & Cowlishaw, G. (2004) The value of bushmeat and other wild foods to rural households living in extreme poverty in Democratic Republic of Congo. Biological Conservation 118: 573581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Planning and Investment Ha Tinh (2003) Planning Atlas of Ha Tinh. Ha Tinh Province, Vietnam: Department of Planning and Investment.Google Scholar
Dove, M.R. (1993) A revisionist view of tropical deforestation and development. Environmental Conservation 20: 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eames, J. (1996) Ke Go Nature Reserve. World Birdwatch 18: 68.Google Scholar
Fernandes, W. & Menon, G. (1987) Tribal Women and Forest Economy. New Delhi, India: Indian Social Institute.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1963) Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley, CA, USA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gilmour, D.A. & San, N.V. (1999) Buffer Zone Management in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: IUCN.Google Scholar
Godoy, R. & Lubowski, R. (1992) Guidelines for the economic valuation of non-timber forest products. Current Anthropology 33: 424433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godoy, R., Brokaw, N. & Wilkie, D. (1995) The effect of income on the extraction of non-timber tropical forest products: model, hypotheses, and preliminary findings from the Sumu Indians of Nicaragua. Human Ecology 23: 2953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gram, S. (2001) Economic valuation of special forest products: an assessment of methodological shortcomings. Ecological Economics 36: 109117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, A. (1990) Indigenous peoples and the marketing of the rainforest. In: The Ecologist 20: 223227.Google Scholar
Gunatilake, H. (1998) The role of rural development in protecting tropical rainforests: evidence from Sri Lanka. Journal of Environmental Management 53: 273292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunatilake, H.M., Senaratne, D.M.A.H. & Abeygunawardena, P. (1993) Role of non-timber forest products in the economy of peripheral communities of Knuckles National Wilderness Area of Sri Lanka: a farming systems approach. Economic Botany 47: 275281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegde, R. & Enters, T. (2000) Forest products and household economy: a case study from Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India. Environmental Conservation 27: 250259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilfiker, K., Zingerli, C., Sorg, J.P. & Lothi, R. (2006) Market potential and resource management of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) in the northern uplands of Vietnam. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen 157: 4956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. & Flintan, F. (2001) Integrating Conservation and Development Experience: A Review and Bibliography of the ICDP Literature. London, UK: IIED.Google Scholar
ICEM (2003) Vietnam National Report on Protected Areas and Development: Review of Protected Areas and Development in the Lower Mekong River Region. Indooroopilly, Queensland, Australia: The International Centre for Environmental Management.Google Scholar
Iqbal, M. (1993) International Trade of Non-Wood Forest Products: An Overview. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
Lacuna-Richman, C. (2002) The socio-economic significance of subsistence non-wood forest products in Leyte, Philippines. Environmental Conservation 29: 253262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacuna-Richman, C. (2006) The use of non-wood forest products by migrants in a new settlement: experiences of a Visayan community in Palawan, Philippines. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2: 36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Trong Trai, , Dung, N.H., Cu, N., Cham, L.V., Eames, J. & Chicoine, G. (1999) An Investment Plan for Ke Go Nature Reserve, Ha Tinh Province, Vietnam: A Contribution to the Management Plan. Hanoi, Vietnam: Birdlife International and the Forest Inventory and Planning Institute.Google Scholar
Mahapatra, A.K. & Tewari, D.D. (2005) Importance of non-timber forest products in the economic valuation of dry deciduous forests of India. Forest Policy and Economics 7: 455467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mamo, G., Sjaastad, E. & Vedeld, P. (2007) Economic dependence on forest resources: a case from Dendi District, Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 916927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MARD (1997) Review report on planning, organization and management of special use forest. Cuc Phuong National Park, Vietnam: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development.Google Scholar
Marshall, E., Newton, A.C. & Schreckenberg, K. (2003) Commercialisation of non-timber forest products: first steps in analysing the factors influencing success. International Forestry Review 5: 128137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSweeney, K. (2002) Who is ‘forest-dependent’? Capturing local variation in forest-product sale, Eastern Honduras. Professional Geographer 54: 158174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McSweeney, K. (2004) Forest product sale as natural insurance: the effects of household characteristics and the nature of shock in eastern Honduras. Society and Natural Resources 17: 3956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, D., Epprecht, M. & Sunderlin, W.D. (2006) Where are the Poor and Where are the Trees?: Targeting of Poverty Reduction and Forest Conservation in Vietnam. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
Neumann, R.P. & Hirsch, E. (2000) Commercialisation of Non-Timber Forest Products: Review and Analysis of Research. Rome, Italy: CIFOR and FAO.Google Scholar
Pandit, B.H. & Thapa, G.B. (2003) A tragedy of non-timber forest resources in the mountain commons of Nepal. Environmental Conservation 30: 283292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rigg, J. (2006) Land, farming, livelihoods and poverty: rethinking the links in the rural South. World Development 34: 180202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruiz-Pérez, M. & Arnold, J., eds (1996) Current Issues in Non-Timber Forest Products Research. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
Ruiz-Pérez, M., Belcher, B., Achidiawan, R., Alexiades, M., Aubertin, C., Cabellero, J., Campbell, B., Clement, C., Cunningham, A., Fantini, A., de Forestra, H., Gracia Fernandez, C., Gautam, K., Martinez, P.H., de Jong, W., Kusters, K., Kutty, M.G., Lopez, C., Fu, M., Martinez Alfaro, M.A., Nair, T.K.R., Ndoye, O., Ocampo, R., Rai, N., Ricker, M., Schreckenberg, K., Shackleton, S., Shanley, P., Sunderland, T. & Youn, Y.C. (2004) Markets drive the specialization strategies of forest peoples. Ecology and Society 9:4 [www document]. URL http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sage, N. & Cu, Nguyen, eds (2001) A discussion paper on analysis of constraints and enabling factors of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDP) in Vietnam. Hanoi: ICDP Working Group and IUCN.Google Scholar
Salafsky, N. & Wollenberg, E. (2000) Linking livelihoods and conservation: a conceptual framework and scale for assessing the integration of human needs and biodiversity. World Development 28: 14211438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senaratne, A., Abeygunawardena, P. & Jayatilake, W. (2003) Changing role of non-timber forest products (NTFP) in rural household economy: the case of Sinharaja World Heritage site in Sri Lanka. Environmental Management 32: 559571.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shackleton, C.M. & Shackleton, S.E. (2006) Household wealth status and natural resource use in the Kat River valley, South Africa. Ecological Economics 57: 306317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siebert, S.F. & Belsky, J. (1985) Forest product trade in a lowland Filipino Village. Economic Botany 39: 522533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjaastad, E., Angelsen, A., Vedeld, P. & Bojo, J. (2005). What is environmental income? Ecological Economics 55: 3746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SNV (2000) Proceedings of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects Lessons Learned Workshop. Hanoi, Vietnam: SNV, WWF and IUCN.Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W. & Ba, Huynh Thu (2005) Poverty Alleviation and Forests in Vietnam. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
Sunderlin, W. (2006) Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam: an assessment of the potential. Forest Policy and Economics 8: 386396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Sjaastad, E., & Berg, G.K. (2004) Counting on the environment: forest incomes and the rural poor. Environmental Economics Series Paper No. 98. Washington DC, USA: The World Bank.Google Scholar
Vedeld, P., Angelsen, A., Bojo, J., Sjaastad, E. & Berg, G.K. (2007) Forest environmental incomes and the rural poor. Forest Policy and Economics 9: 869879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetterwald, O., Zingerli, C. & Sorg, J.P. (2004) Non-timber forest products in Nam Dong District, Central Vietnam: Ecological and economic prospects. Schweizerische Zeitschrift fur Forstwesen 155: 4552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wickramasinghe, A., Perez, M.R. & Blockhus, J.M. (1996) Nontimber forest product gathering in Ritigala forest (Sri Lanka): household strategies and community differentiation. Human Ecology 24: 493519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollenberg, E. (2000) Methods for estimating forest income and their challenges. Society and Natural Resources 13: 777795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wollenberg, E. & Ingles, A., eds. (1998) Incomes from the Forest: Methods for the Development and Conservation of Forest Products for Local Communities. Bogor, Indonesia: Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR).Google Scholar
World Bank (2001) Vietnam Living Standards Survey (VLSS), 1997–98: Basic Information. Washington DC, USA: Poverty and Human Resources Division, The World Bank.Google Scholar
69
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Forest environmental income in Vietnam: household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *