Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-09T14:25:41.104Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of payments for forest environmental services on households' livelihood: a case study in the Central Highlands of Vietnam

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2022

Van Truong Pham Open the ORCID record for Van Truong Pham [Opens in a new window] ,
Saowalak Roongtawanreongsri ,
Thong Quoc Ho Open the ORCID record for Thong Quoc Ho [Opens in a new window]  and
Phuong Hanh Niekdam Tran
Van Truong Pham*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkla, Thailand Faculty of Economics, Tay Nguyen University, Vietnam
Saowalak Roongtawanreongsri
Affiliation:
Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla University, Songkla, Thailand
Thong Quoc Ho
Affiliation:
School of Economics, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Phuong Hanh Niekdam Tran
Affiliation:
Tay Nguyen Center for Rural Development, Hanoi, Vietnam
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: pvtruong@ttn.edu.vn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Payments for environmental services have been popularly used in environmental management and an increasing number of studies assesses their contribution to local livelihoods. This study employs propensity score matching with a dataset of 404 indigenous households in the Central Highlands of Vietnam to evaluate the effect of payments for forest environmental services (PFES) on their livelihoods. Participating in PFES increased households' employment and income from activities related to natural forests. Income from PFES allowed households to enhance productive investment and promote income from cultivation activities. All of this, in turn, increased their annual income, job satisfaction, living expenditures, and reduced the amount of any loan. Additionally, PFES enhanced opportunities to participate in training courses and traditional community activities. This confirms that PFES is not only a good initiative for forest management but also a livelihood policy for communities.

Keywords

impactindigenous householdlivelihoodpayments for ecosystem servicespayments for environmental servicesPESVietnam

JEL classification

Q23: Forestry Q58: Government Policy Q51: Valuation of Environmental Effects
Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , April 2023 , pp. 149 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Alix-Garcia, J and Wolff, H (2014) Payment for ecosystem services from forests. Annual Review of Resource Economics 6, 361–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alix-Garcia, JM, Sims, KRE, Orozco-Olvera, VH, Costica, LE, Fernández Medina, JD and Monroy, SR (2018) Payments for environmental services supported social capital while increasing land management. PNAS 115, 7016–7021.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Angelsen, A and Wunder, S (2003) Exploring the forest-poverty link: key concepts, issues and research implications. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper No. 40, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Austin, PC (2014) A comparison of 12 algorithms for matching on the propensity score. Statistics in Medicine 33, 1057–1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beauchamp, E, Clements, T and Milner-Gulland, E (2018) Assessing medium-term impacts of conservation interventions on local livelihoods in Northern Cambodia. World Development 101, 202–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blundo-Canto, G, Bax, V, Quintero, M, Cruz-Garcia, GS, Groeneveld, RA and Perez-Marulanda, L (2018) The different dimensions of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services (PES) schemes: a systematic review. Ecological Economics 149, 160–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borner, J, Baylis, K, Corbera, E, Ezzine-De-Blas, D, Honey-Roses, J, Persson, UM and Wunder, S (2017) The effectiveness of payments for environmental services. World Development 96, 359–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, LL, Farley, KA, Lopez-Carr, D and Romero, J (2014) Conservation and livelihood outcomes of payment for ecosystem services in the Ecuadorian Andes: what is the potential for ‘win–win’? Ecosystem Services 8, 148–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulte, EH, Lipper, L, Stringer, R and Zilberman, D (2008) Payments for ecosystem services and poverty reduction: concepts, issues, and empirical perspectives. Environment and Development Economics 13, 245–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caliendo, M and Kopeinig, S (2008) Some practical guidance for the implementation of propensity score matching. Journal of Economic Surveys 22, 31–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clements, T and Milner-Gulland, E (2014) Impact of payment for environmental services and protected areas local livelihoods and forest conservation in northern Cambodia. Conservation Biology 29, 78–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corbera, E, Soberanis, CG and Brown, K (2009) Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 68, 743–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DFID (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: Department for International Development (DFID).Google Scholar
Do, TD and NaRanong, A (2019) Livelihood and environmental impacts of payments for forest environmental services: a case study in Vietnam. Sustainability 11, 1–22.Google Scholar
Duong, NTB and De Groot, WT (2020) The impact of payment for forest environmental services (PFES) on community-level forest management in Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 113, article 102135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, S, Pagiola, S and Wunder, S (2008) Designing payment for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecological Economics 65, 663–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farley, J and Costanza, R (2010) Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecological Economics 69, 2060–2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferraro, PJ and Kiss, A (2002) Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science (New York, N.Y.) 298, 1718–1719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1992) Decision 327-CT on the policy of reforestation in bare hills and mountains, coastal mudflats and water surface. Available at https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/default.aspx?pageid=27160&docid=1642 (in Vietnamese).Google Scholar
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1995) Decision 556 on adjustment and supplementation of 327 Decision. Available at https://vanban.chinhphu.vn/default.aspx?pageid=27160&docid=2851 (in Vietnamese).Google Scholar
Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (1998) Decision 661 / QD-TTg on the objectives, tasks, policies and implementation of the program of five million hectare reforestation. Available at https://chinhphu.vn/default.aspx?pageid=27160&docid=5436 (in Vietnamese).Google Scholar
Grieg-Gran, M, Porras, I and Wunder, S (2005) How can market mechanisms for forest environmental services help the poor? Preliminary lessons from Latin America. World Development 33, 1511–1527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, JJ, Ichimura, H and Topp, P (1997) Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme. Review of Economic Studies 64, 605–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegde, R and Bull, GQ (2011) Performance of an agro-forestry based payments for environmental services project in Mozambique: a household level analysis. Ecological Economics 71, 122–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingrama, JC, Wilkie, D, Clements, T, McNab, RB, Nelson, F, Baur, EH, Sachedina, HT, Peterson, DD and Foley, CAH (2014) Evidence of payment for ecosystem services as a mechanism for supporting biodiversity conservation and rural livelihood. Ecosystem Services 7, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jack, BK, Kousky, C and Sims, KRE (2007) Designing payment for ecosystem services: lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms. PNAS 105, 9465–9470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, KW, Foucat, SA, Pischke, EC, Salcone, J, Torrez, D, Selfa, T and Halvorsen, KE (2019) Exploring the connections between participation in and benefits from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz State. Mexico. Ecosystem Services 35, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, KW, Etchart, N, Holland, M, Naughton-Treves, L and Arriagada, R (2020) The impact of paying for forest conservation on perceived tenure security in Ecuador. Conservation Letters 13, e12710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khandker, SR, Koolwal, GB and Samad, HA (2010) Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Kwayu, EJ, Paavola, J and Sallu, SM (2017) The livelihood impact of the equitable payments for watershed services (EPWS) program in Morogoro, Tanzania. Environment and Development Economics 22, 328–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landell-Mills, N and Porras, IT (2002) Silver bullet or fools’ gold? A global review of markets for forest environmental services and their impact on the poor. Instruments for sustainable private sector forestry series. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.Google Scholar
Lawlor, K, Madeira, EM, Blockhus, J and Ganz, DJ (2013) Community participation and benefits in REDD + : a review of initial outcomes and lessons. Forests 4, 296–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leimona, B, Pasha, R and Rahadian, N (2010) The livelihood impacts of incentive payments for watershed management in Cidanau watershed, West Java, Indonesia. In Tacconi, L, Mahanty, S and Suich, H (eds), Payments for Environmental Services, Forest Conservation and Climate Change: Livelihoods in the REDD? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 106–129.Google Scholar
Liddell, TM and Kruschke, JK (2018) Analyzing ordinal data with metric models: what could possibly go wrong? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 79, 328–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, Z and Kontoleon, A (2018) Meta-analysis of livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services programmes in developing countries. Ecological Economics 149, 48–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locatelli, B, Rojas, V and Salinas, Z (2008) Impacts of payments for environmental services on local development in northern Costa Rica: a fuzzy multi-criteria analysis. Forest Policy and Economics 10, 275–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lokina, R and John, I (2016) Welfare implications of the payment for environmental services: case of Uluguru Mountain –Morogoro. African Journal of Economic Review 4, 143–156.Google Scholar
Lunt, M (2014) Selecting an appropriate caliper can be essential for achieving good balance with propensity score matching. American Journal of Epidemiology 179, 226–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayrand, K and Paquin, M (2004) Payments for environmental services: a survey and assessment of current schemes. Unisféra International Centre.Google Scholar
Milder, JC, Scherr, SJ and Bracer, C (2010) Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 15, article 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miranda, M, Porras, IT and Moreno, ML (2003) The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica. A quantitative field survey and analysis of the Virilla watershed. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.Google Scholar
Molina Murillo, SA, Castillo, JPP and Ugalde, MEH (2014) Assessment of environmental payments on indigenous territories: the case of Cabecar-Talamanca, Costa Rica. Ecology and Society 8, 35–43.Google Scholar
Nguyen, VS and Gilmour, D (1999) Forest Rehabilitation Policy and Practice in Vietnam. Hanoi, Vietnam: IUCN Vietnam.Google Scholar
Nguyen, CT and Vuong, VQ (2016) Assessment Report: 8 Years of Organizing and Operating the Forest Protection and Development Fund (2008–2015) and 5 Years of Implementing the Policy on Payment for Forest Environmental Services (2011–2015). Ha Noi: Greater Mekong Subregion Environment Operations Center.Google Scholar
Nguyen, QN, Wildemeersch, D and Masschelein, J (2015) The five million hectare reforestation programme in Vietnam – lessons and policy implications. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 14, 40–55.Google Scholar
Pagiola, S, Arcenas, A and Platais, G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and the evidence to date from Latin America. World Development 33, 237–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, U, Muradian, R, Rodríguez, LC and Duraiappah, A (2010) Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecological Economics 69, 1237–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pesche, D, Méral, P, Hrabanski, M and Bonnin, M (2012) Ecosystem services and payments for environmental services: two sides of the same coin? In Muradian, R and Rival, L (eds), Governing the Provision of Ecosystem Services. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 67–86.Google Scholar
Pham, TT, Bennett, K, Vu, TP, Brunner, J, Le, ND and Nguyen, DT (2013) Payments for forest environmental services in Vietnam: From policy to practice. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper No. 93, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Pham, TT, Loft, L, Bennett, K, Phuong, VT, Dung, LN and Brunner, J (2015) Monitoring and evaluation of payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam: from myth to reality. Ecosystem Services 16, 220–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pham, VT, Roongtawanreongsri, S, Ho, TQ and Tran, PHN (2021) Can payments for forest environmental services help improve income and attitudes toward forest conservation? Household-level evaluation in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 132, 102578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phan, THD, Brouwer, R, Davidson, MD and Hoang, LP (2017) A comparative study of transaction costs of payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics 80, 141–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenbaum, PR and Rubin, DB (1983) The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal. Biometrika 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samii, C, Lisiecki, M, Kulkarni, P, Paler, L and Chavis, L (2014) Effects of payment for environmental services on deforestation and poverty in low-and middle-income countries: a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews 10, 1–95.Google Scholar
Schomers, S and Matzdorf, B (2013) Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecological Economics 6, 16–30.Google Scholar
Scullion, J, Thomas, CW, Vogt, KA, Pérez-Maqueo, O and Lodsdon, MG (2011) Evaluating the environmental impact of payments for ecosystem services in Coatepec (Mexico) using remote sensing and on-site interviews. Environmental Conservation 38, 426–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunderlin, WD and Huynh, TB (2005) Poverty alleviation and forests in Vietnam. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Tacconi, L, Mahanty, S and Suich, H (2013) The livelihood impacts of payments for environmental services and implications for REDD + . Society & Natural Resources 26, 733–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
To, XP and Tran, HN (2014) Forest Land Allocation in the Context of Forestry Sector Restructuring: Opportunities for Forestry Development and Upland Livelihood Improvement. Hue, Viet Nam: Tropenbos International Viet Nam.Google Scholar
Uchida, E, Xu, J, Xu, Z and Rozelle, S (2007) Are the poor benefiting from China's land conservation program? Environment and Development Economics 12, 593–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Noordwijk, M, Leimona, B, Emerton, L, Tomich, TP, Velarde, SJ, Kallesoe, M, Sekher, M and Swallow, B (2007) Criteria and indicators for environmental service compensation and reward mechanisms: realistic, voluntary, conditional and pro-poor. CES Scoping Study Issue Paper No. 2. ICRAF Working Paper no. 37, World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi, Kenya.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vietnam Forests and Deltas Program (2015) Report on the implementation of the 3-year policy of payment for forest environmental services in Vietnam (2011–2014). USAID (in Vietnamese).Google Scholar
Vietnam Forests and Deltas Program (2021) Summary of 10 years of implementation of the policy on payments for forest environmental services for the period 2011–2020 and development orientation for the period 2021–2030. USAID (in Vietnamese).Google Scholar
Vonada, R, Herbert, T and Waage, S (2011) Introduction to Payments for Ecosystem Services: A Reference Book for Uganda. Uganda: The Government of Uganda's National Environment Management Authority.Google Scholar
Wang, C, Pang, W and Hong, J (2017) Impact of a regional payment for ecosystem service program on the livelihoods of different rural households. Cleaner Production 164, 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wendimu, MA, Henningsen, A and Gibbon, P (2016) Sugarcane outgrowers in Ethiopia: ’forced’ to remain poor? World Development 83, 84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H and Raitzer, DA (2017) Impact Evaluation of Development Interventions: A Practical Guide. Manila, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
Wunder, S (2005) Payments for environmental services: some nuts and bolts. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) Occasional Paper No. 42, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Wunder, S (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics? Ecology and Society 11, article 23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S (2008) Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics 13, 279–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunder, S, Engel, S and Pagiola, S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65, 834–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, W, Liu, W, Viña, A, Luo, J, He, G and Ouyang, Z (2013) Performance and prospects of payments for ecosystem services programs: evidence from China. Environmental Management 127, 86–95.Google ScholarPubMed
Yin, R, Liu, C, Zhao, M, Yao, S and Liu, H (2014) The implementation and impacts of China's largest payment for ecosystem services program as revealed by longitudinal household data. Land Use Policy 40, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, H, Robinson, BE, Liang, YC, Polasky, S, Ma, DC, Wang, FC, Ruckelshaus, M, Ouyang, ZY and Daily, GC (2013) Benefits, costs, and livelihood implications of a regional payment for ecosystem service program. PNAS 110, 16681–16686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: PDF

Pham et al. supplementary material

Pham et al. supplementary material
Download Pham et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 592.2 KB