Resource Use Among Rural Agricultural Households Near Protected Areas in Vietnam: The Social Costs of Conservation and Implications for Enforcement
Resource Use Among Rural Agricultural Households Near Protected Areas in Vietnam: The Social Costs of Conservation and Implications for Enforcement
复制标题
越南保护区附近农村家庭的资源利用：保护的社会成本和执法的影响
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
P. McElwee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. McElwee
这篇文章探讨了越南中部地区附近的农学家对保护区内森林的利用。研究表明，大多数住在国家指定保护区附近的受访农民都从森林活动中获得生计和现金收入，主要是从收集森林产品中获得。然而，大部分的森林产品的收集是正式非法的，因为它发生在国家保护的森林，和拦截的努力正在增加。然而，在越南，很少有人注意到由于保护执法而失去森林产品的家庭的收入替代需求，特别是生活在保护区附近但不在保护区内的农民;由于缺乏对该主题的关注和研究，他们的资源使用一直是“无形的”。这种对森林对农民重要性的误解有可能导致家庭面临不利的福利和生计结果，因为保护区的边界被收紧，当地社区因更严格的保护执法而面临更大的机会成本。文章的结论是，替代的收入损失，由于保护活动，最好是通过仔细有针对性的干预措施，以特定的高影响和高依赖性的家庭。此外，对新的雇佣劳动力来源和其他低资本投入活动的投资，而不是对农业的投资，可能会带来最大的好处。
This article examines the use of forests in a protected area by nearby agriculturalists in central Vietnam. Research indicates that the majority of rural farmers interviewed who lived near a state designated protected area were receiving both subsistence and cash incomes from forest-based activities, primarily from the collection of forest products. However, much of the collection of forest produce was officially illegal, as it occurred in state protected forests, and interdiction efforts were on the increase. Yet, little attention has been paid in Vietnam to the need for income substitution for households who lose access to forest produce as a result of conservation enforcement, particularly in the case of farmers who live near, but not in, protected areas; their resources use has been ‘invisible’ due to a lack of attention and research on the topic. This misunderstanding of the importance of forests to rural farmers has the potential to result in households facing adverse welfare and livelihood outcomes as protected areas boundaries are tightened, and local communities face increased opportunity costs due to stricter conservation enforcement. The article concludes that substitution for loss of income due to conservation activities would best be achieved through carefully targeted interventions to specific high-impact and high-dependency households. Additionally, investments in new sources of wage labor and other low capital-input activities, rather than in agriculture, would likely be of most benefit.