IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v100y2019icp129-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar

Author

Listed:
  • Soe, Khaing Thandar
  • Yeo-Chang, YOUN

Abstract

The forestry sector in Myanmar continues to face many challenges concerning sustainable forest management. Even though the participation of local people is a key principle of forest policy in Myanmar, there is ample opportunity for people's participation in forest conservation to be improved. This study aimed to identify what factors should be considered to promote the participation of local people in forest conservation. The primary objectives were: to investigate the perceptions of people in forest-dependent communities towards forest conservation, and: to determine which policy interventions would be most appropriate for motivating local people to participate in forest conservation. We studied several communities in the Bogo Yama Region of Myanmar as a case study, involving interviews with key informants, focus group discussions, and interviews among 330 randomly selected households using semi-structured questionnaires to conduct a survey. For the interview survey, three hypothetical incentives to promote forest conservation interventions were specified, namely, (i) direct payment, (ii) providing income opportunities, and (iii) providing land tenure security or temporary land use rights to cultivate agricultural crops. The qualitative and quantitative data attained were integrated and analyzed using binary logistic regression. We observed that the communities utilized forests mainly for domestic energy supply, earning income, and regulating local weather. The respondents reported that deforestation occurred mainly because of legal and illegal charcoal making, over-exploitation of non-timber forest products, and logging. A willingness to participate in forest conservation differed in relation to the physical conditions of local communities, in the form of resource availability, remoteness of the village, and farm-land availability, as well as depending on people's awareness of the seriousness of deforestation and the need for food security. Providing income opportunities was identified as the most important incentive for peoples' participation. The results of this study suggest that forest policy makers should consider the different preferences for incentives among different communities, which vary depending on the socio-economic characteristics of the people and the physical and social conditions of the locality.

Suggested Citation

  • Soe, Khaing Thandar & Yeo-Chang, YOUN, 2019. "Perceptions of forest-dependent communities toward participation in forest conservation: A case study in Bago Yoma, South-Central Myanmar," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 129-141.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:100:y:2019:i:c:p:129-141
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2018.11.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118303265
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.11.009?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Coulibaly-Lingani, Pascaline & Savadogo, Patrice & Tigabu, Mulualem & Oden, Per-Christer, 2011. "Factors influencing people's participation in the forest management program in Burkina Faso, West Africa," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 292-302, April.
    2. Jumbe, Charles B.L. & Angelsen, Arild, 2007. "Forest dependence and participation in CPR management: Empirical evidence from forest co-management in Malawi," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 661-672, May.
    3. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Bauer, Siegfried & Uibrig, Holm, 2010. "Land privatization and afforestation incentive of rural farms in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 518-526, September.
    4. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    5. Youn, Yeo-Chang & Choi, Junyeong & de Jong, Wil & Liu, Jinlong & Park, Mi Sun & Camacho, Leni D. & Tachibana, Satoshi & Huudung, Nguyen Din & Bhojvaid, Padam Parkash & Damayanti, Ellyn K. & Wanneng, P, 2017. "Conditions of forest transition in Asian countries," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 14-24.
    6. Maskey, Vishakha & Gebremedhin, Tesfa G. & Dalton, Timothy J., 2006. "Social and cultural determinants of collective management of community forest in Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 261-274, January.
    7. Agrawal, Arun & Gupta, Krishna, 2005. "Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal's Terai," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1101-1114, July.
    8. Michener, Victoria J., 1998. "The participatory approach: Contradiction and co-option in Burkina Faso," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 2105-2118, December.
    9. Lise, Wietze, 2000. "Factors influencing people's participation in forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 379-392, September.
    10. Chhetri, Bir Bahadur Khanal & Johnsen, Fred Hakon & Konoshima, Masashi & Yoshimoto, Atsushi, 2013. "Community forestry in the hills of Nepal: Determinants of user participation in forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 6-13.
    11. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.
    12. Arun Agrawal & Elinor Ostrom, 2001. "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 485-514, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mengist, Wondimagegn & Soromessa, Teshome & Feyisa, Gudina Legese & Jenerette, G. Darrel, 2022. "Socio-environmental determinants of the perceived value of moist Afromontane forest ecosystem services in Kaffa Biosphere Reserve, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    2. Siriluck Thammanu & Hee Han & E. M. B. P. Ekanayake & Yoonkoo Jung & Joosang Chung, 2021. "The Impact on Ecosystem Services and the Satisfaction Therewith of Community Forest Management in Northern Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-31, December.
    3. Naomi Moswete & Brijesh Thapa & William K. Darley, 2020. "Local Communities’ Attitudes and Support Towards the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park in Southwest Botswana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    4. Nijnik, Maria & Secco, Laura & Miller, David & Melnykovych, Mariana, 2019. "Can social innovation make a difference to forest-dependent communities?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 207-213.
    5. Kweon, Deogkyu & Youn, Yeo-Chang, 2021. "Factors influencing sustainability of traditional village groves (Maeulsoop) in Korea," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    6. Ullah, Ayat & Zeb, Alam & Saqib, Shahab E. & Kächele, Harald, 2022. "Landscape co-management and livelihood sustainability: Lessons learned from the billion trees afforestation project in Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Song, Malin & Xie, Qianjiao & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Yao, Xin, 2023. "Economic growth and security from the perspective of natural resource assets," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    8. Rajesh Bista & Sophia Graybill & Qi Zhang & Richard E. Bilsborrow & Conghe Song, 2023. "Influence of Rural Out-Migration on Household Participation in Community Forest Management? Evidence from the Middle Hills of Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    9. Bhatta, Manoj & Garnett, Stephen T. & Zander, Kerstin K., 2022. "Exploring options for a PES-like scheme to conserve red panda habitat and livelihood improvement in western Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hussein Luswaga & Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2020. "Participatory Forest Management in West Usambara Tanzania: What Is the Community Perception on Success?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-24, January.
    2. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu, 2017. "Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household's participation in forest governance and management in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 63-70.
    3. Paudel, Jayash, 2016. "Community-Managed Forests and Household Welfare: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235481, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Adhikari, Sunit & Kingi, Tanira & Ganesh, Siva, 2014. "Incentives for community participation in the governance and management of common property resources: the case of community forest management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    6. Yadav, Bhagwan Dutta & Bigsby, Hugh & MacDonald, Ian, 2015. "How can poor and disadvantaged households get an opportunity to become a leader in community forestry in Nepal?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 27-38.
    7. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    8. Pete Parker & Brijesh Thapa, 2011. "Distribution of benefits based on household participation roles in decentralized conservation within Kanchenjunga Conservation Area Project, Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 879-899, October.
    9. Moses Kazungu & Eliza Zhunusova & Gillian Kabwe & Sven Günter, 2021. "Household-Level Determinants of Participation in Forest Support Programmes in the Miombo Landscapes, Zambia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-20, March.
    10. Rajesh Bista & Sophia Graybill & Qi Zhang & Richard E. Bilsborrow & Conghe Song, 2023. "Influence of Rural Out-Migration on Household Participation in Community Forest Management? Evidence from the Middle Hills of Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Mbeche, Robert & Ateka, Josiah & Herrmann, Raoul & Grote, Ulrike, 2021. "Understanding forest users' participation in participatory forest management (PFM): Insights from Mt. Elgon forest ecosystem, Kenya," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    12. Paudel, Ganesh & Bhusal, Prabin & Kimengsi, Jude Ndzifon, 2021. "Determining the costs and benefits of Scientific Forest Management in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    13. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local perception and attitude toward community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    14. Paudel, Jayash & Crago, Christine L., 2017. "Fertilizer Subsidy and Agricultural Productivity: Empirical Evidence from Nepal," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258464, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Sapkota, Prativa & Keenan, Rodney J. & Ojha, Hemant R., 2018. "Community institutions, social marginalization and the adaptive capacity: A case study of a community forestry user group in the Nepal Himalayas," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 55-64.
    16. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Welfare and forest cover impacts of incentive based conservation: Evidence from Kenyan community forest associations," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    17. Sikor, Thomas & Nguyen, Tan Quang, 2007. "Why May Forest Devolution Not Benefit the Rural Poor? Forest Entitlements in Vietnam's Central Highlands," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 2010-2025, November.
    18. Behera, Bhagirath & Engel, Stefanie, 2006. "Who Forms Local Institutions? Levels of Household Participation in India’s Joint Forest Management Program," Discussion Papers 276267, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    19. St. Clair, Priscilla Cooke, 2016. "Community forest management, gender and fuelwood collection in rural Nepal," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 52-71.
    20. Friedman, Rachel S. & Wilson, Kerrie A. & Rhodes, Jonathan R. & Law, Elizabeth A., 2022. "What does equitable distribution mean in community forests?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).

    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:eee:forpol:v:100:y:2019:i:c:p:129-141. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol .

    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.