IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/devchg/v31y2000i1p155-177.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

People in Between: Conversion and Conservation of Forest Lands in Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Jin Sato

Abstract

The analysis of ‘ambiguous lands’ and the people who inhabit them is most revealing for understanding environmental deterioration in Thailand. ‘Ambiguous lands’ are those which are legally owned by the state, but are used and cultivated by local people. Land with an ambiguous property status attracts many different actors: villagers hungry for unoccupied arable lands in the frontiers; government departments looking for new project sites; and conservation agencies searching for new areas to be protected. This article shows, first, how two types of ambiguous land — state‐owned but privately‐cultivated land, and communal lands — were created. It then examines how the Karen, one of the hill peoples living on the ambiguous lands, have been struggling to survive between the forces of capitalistic development and forest conservation. Using a detailed study of forest use and dependency conducted in two Karen villages, I argue that the state’s efforts to reduce the Karen’s forest dependency, or even to evict them from the forests, are not leading to the stated objective of conservation. Finally, I draw some wider implications with reference to James Scott’s thesis on state simplification.

Suggested Citation

  • Jin Sato, 2000. "People in Between: Conversion and Conservation of Forest Lands in Thailand," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 31(1), pages 155-177, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:devchg:v:31:y:2000:i:1:p:155-177
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-7660.00150
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00150
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-7660.00150?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Tania Murray, 2002. "Engaging Simplifications: Community-Based Resource Management, Market Processes and State Agendas in Upland Southeast Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 265-283, February.
    2. Sims, Katharine R.E., 2010. "Conservation and development: Evidence from Thai protected areas," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 94-114, September.
    3. Johnson, Craig & Forsyth, Timothy, 2002. "In the Eyes of the State: Negotiating a "Rights-Based Approach" to Forest Conservation in Thailand," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 30(9), pages 1591-1605, September.
    4. John E. Fernández & Marcela Angel, 2020. "Ecological City-States in an Era of Environmental Disaster: Security, Climate Change and Biodiversity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-21, July.
    5. Wong, Grace Y. & Holm, Minda & Pietarinen, Niina & Ville, Alizee & Brockhaus, Maria, 2022. "The making of resource frontier spaces in the Congo Basin and Southeast Asia: A critical analysis of narratives, actors and drivers in the scientific literature," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 27(C).
    6. Gine, Xavier, 2005. "Cultivate or rent out ? Land security in rural Thailand," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3734, The World Bank.
    7. Sato, Jin, 2011. "State Inaction in Resource Governance:Natural Resource Control and Bureaucratic Oversight in Thailand," Working Papers 36, JICA Research Institute.
    8. Dressler, Wolfram & Roth, Robin, 2011. "The Good, the Bad, and the Contradictory: Neoliberal Conservation Governance in Rural Southeast Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 851-862, May.
    9. Saturnino M. Borras Jr, 2006. "Redistributive land reform in ‘public’ (forest) lands? Lessons from the Philippines and their implications for land reform theory and practice," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 6(2), pages 123-145, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:devchg:v:31:y:2000:i:1:p:155-177. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0012-155X .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.