IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i23p13474-d695913.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact on Ecosystem Services and the Satisfaction Therewith of Community Forest Management in Northern Thailand

Author

Listed:
  • Siriluck Thammanu

    (Royal Forest Department, Bangkok 10900, Thailand)

  • Hee Han

    (Department of Forest Policy and Economics, National Institute of Forest Science, Seoul 02455, Korea)

  • E. M. B. P. Ekanayake

    (Department of Forest Conservation, Sampathpaya, Battaramulla 10120, Sri Lanka)

  • Yoonkoo Jung

    (Department of Forest Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Joosang Chung

    (Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Bioresources, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
    Research Institute of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea)

Abstract

Forest ecosystems provide myriad services that are beneficial to local livelihoods. Successful community forest management (CFM) enhances the provision, overall benefit, and effectiveness of the regulation of ecosystem services and contributes to forest conservation efforts. The study area was a deciduous forest in the Ban Mae Chiang Rai Lum Community Forest, which is located in Pa Mae Phrik National Forest Reserve in Thailand’s northern province of Lampang. A systematic sampling of the forest area was conducted, and survey plots were established. A field survey documented 197 plant species from 62 families. A questionnaire that focused on CFM engagement behavior and ecosystem service satisfaction levels was used to interview household representatives. The study found that levels of engagement and the effectiveness of forest management were directly related; increased CFM effectiveness leads to improved ecosystem services. Participation in CFM can improve ecosystem services and enhance livelihoods. Specifically, participation in decision making, forest fire management, check dam construction, benefit sharing, and in forming effective forest regulations positively impacted ecosystem services. In contrast, employing forest patrols adversely affected those services. This knowledge is useful for identifying policies and practices that can maximize ecosystem services to enhance livelihoods and safeguard the forest’s vitality.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13474-:d:695913
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13474/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/23/13474/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gebreegziabher, Zenebe & Mekonnen, Alemu & Gebremedhin, Berhanu & Beyene, Abebe D., 2021. "Determinants of success of community forestry: Empirical evidence from Ethiopia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Agrawal, Arun & Chhatre, Ashwini, 2006. "Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 149-166, January.
    4. Sunderlin, William D., 2006. "Poverty alleviation through community forestry in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam: An assessment of the potential," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 386-396, June.
    5. Zhang, Wei & Kato, Edward & Bhandary, Prapti & Nkonya, Ephraim M. & Ibrahim, Hassan Ishaq & Agbonlahor, Mure Uhunamure & Ibrahim, Hussaini Yusu, 2015. "Communities’ perceptions and knowledge of ecosystem services: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria:," IFPRI discussion papers 1418, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    6. Partha Dasgupta & Dale Southerton & Alistair Ulph & David Ulph, 2016. "Consumer Behaviour with Environmental and Social Externalities: Implications for Analysis and Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(1), pages 191-226, September.
    7. Siriluck Thammanu & Zhang Caihong, 2014. "The Growing Stock and Sustainable Utilization of White Bamboo, Bambusa membranacea (Munro) C.M.A. Stapleton &N.H. Xia in the Natural Mixed Deciduous Forest with Teak in Thailand: A Case Study of Huay ," International Journal of Sciences, Office ijSciences, vol. 3(04), pages 23-30, April.
    8. Hoffman, Steven M. & High-Pippert, Angela, 2010. "From private lives to collective action: Recruitment and participation incentives for a community energy program," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7567-7574, December.
    9. Janekarnkij, Penporn, 2014. "Payment For Ecosystem Services (Pes) As Tool For Mae Lao Watershed Conservation," ARE Working Papers 284035, Kasetsart University - Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    10. Poudel, Narayan Raj & Fuwa, Nobuhiko & Otsuka, Keijiro, 2015. "The impacts of a community forestry program on forest conditions, management intensity and revenue generation in the Dang district of Nepal," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 259-281, April.
    11. Alison A. Ormbsby & Jeff Felardo & Robert Musci, 2021. "Multiple values from the forest: contribution of non-timber forest products to livelihoods of local communities in Northeastern Thailand," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(8), pages 11636-11645, August.
    12. Lise, Wietze, 2000. "Factors influencing people's participation in forest management in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 379-392, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Leone, Marinella, 2019. "Women as decision makers in community forest management: Evidence from Nepal," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 180-191.
    15. 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.
    16. Penporn Janekarnkij, 2014. "Payment For Ecosystem Services (Pes) As Tool For Mae Lao Watershed Conservation," Working Papers 201404, Kasetsart University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    17. Cohen, John M. & Uphoff, Norman T., 1980. "Participation's place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 213-235, March.
    18. Moktan, Mani Ram & Norbu, Lungten & Choden, Kunzang, 2016. "Can community forestry contribute to household income and sustainable forestry practices in rural area? A case study from Tshapey and Zariphensum in Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 149-157.
    19. Sharif Ahmed Mukul & A. Z. M. Manzoor Rashid & Mohammad Belal Uddin & Niaz Ahmed Khan, 2016. "Role of non-timber forest products in sustaining forest-based livelihoods and rural households' resilience capacity in and around protected area: a Bangladesh study†," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(4), pages 628-642, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Paudel, Jayash, 2018. "Community-Managed Forests, Household Fuelwood Use and Food Consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 62-73.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Mazunda, John & Shively, Gerald, 2015. "Measuring the forest and income impacts of forest user group participation under Malawi's Forest Co-management Program," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 262-273.
    9. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. Etongo, Daniel & Kanninen, Markku & Epule, Terence Epule & Fobissie, Kalame, 2018. "Assessing the effectiveness of joint forest management in Southern Burkina Faso: A SWOT-AHP analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 31-38.
    12. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    13. Michael Huber & Arne Arnberger, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Level of Local Participation in Planning and Management of the Planned Salzburger Lungau & Kärntner Nockberge Biosphere Reserve in Austria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-16, August.
    14. Ota, Tetsuji & Lonn, Pichdara & Mizoue, Nobuya, 2020. "A country scale analysis revealed effective forest policy affecting forest cover changes in Cambodia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Clare, Stephen M. & Ruiz-Jaen, Maria C. & Hickey, Gordon M., 2019. "Assessing the potential of community-based forestry programs in Panama," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 81-92.
    19. Keijiro Otsuka & Ridish Pokharel, 2014. "In search of appropriate institutions for forest management," GRIPS Discussion Papers 13-25, National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies.
    20. Bocci, Corinne & Mishra, Khushbu, 2021. "Forest power: The impact of community forest management on female empowerment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:23:p:13474-:d:695913. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.