Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 373–403 | Cite as

Biodiversity conservation attitudes and policy tools for promoting biodiversity in tropical planted forests

  • Nhung Nghiem
Original Paper


Biodiversity loss poses a real threat to the livelihoods, food security and health of the poor. In Vietnam, nearly 700 species are threatened with national extinction and over 300 species are threatened with global extinction. Deforestation is the main contributor to these biodiversity losses. This study examines biodiversity conservation attitudes of foresters and proposes policy options to promote biodiversity in planted forests. A household survey of 291 foresters in Yen Bai Province, Vietnam, was conducted to examine attitudes to biodiversity conservation. A range of forest policy tools was investigated to find the most appropriate one to enhance biodiversity, given the specific social-economic conditions of foresters. A forest-level optimisation model was employed to design the optimal level of payment for biodiversity conservation. The results suggest that a large number of foresters would agree to the idea of enhancing biodiversity in planted forests if they were financially supported. It is concluded that policy options for the Government of Vietnam include refinements to the current payment scheme and considering increasing the payment level to foresters to enhance biodiversity. These findings may have some generalisability to the plantation forestry sector in other developing countries in tropical zones, and implications for implementing the REDD+ mechanism in developing countries.


Biodiversity conservation Forest policy tools Optimal payment Household foresters Carbon sequestration 



The author would like to express her sincere thanks to her supervisors, Prof. Anton Meister and Dr. Brendan Moyle, for their excellent guidance and encouragement throughout this research. Funding from the Economy and Environmental Program for South East Asia and Ministry of Education has been much appreciated. Special thanks also go to people in Yen Bai Province who were very cooperative and enthusiastic in attending interviews. University of Otago colleagues who provided advice, support and very helpful comments on various drafts include: Associate Prof. Nick Wilson, Rachel Foster, and Prof. Tony Blakely. Many thanks to Dr. Nguyen Nghia Bien (Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development), MSc. Kieu Tu Giang and his colleagues (Yen Bai Forestry Department), colleagues at Vietnam Forestry University for their advice and field assistance, and to this Journal’s reviewers and editors for very helpful suggestions for revisions. Any remaining limitations with the final draft are solely the responsibility of the author. The findings, opinions, and conclusions in this paper are those of the author alone and are not necessarily shared by the author’s affiliated organisations and the funding bodies.


  1. Adams DM, Latta GS (2005) Costs and regional impacts of restoration thinning programs on the national forests in eastern Oregon. Can J For Res–Revue Can De Recherche For 35(6):1319–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams DM, Alig RJ, McCarl BA, Callaway JM, Winnett SM (1996) An analysis of the impacts of public timber harvest policies on private forest management in the United States. For Sci 42(3):343–358Google Scholar
  3. Anon (1992) Vietnam Red Data Book, vol 1. Animals. Scientific Publishing House, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  4. Anon (1996) Vietnam Red Data Book, vol 2. Plants. Scientific Publishing House, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  5. Barbaro L, Couzi L, Bretagnolle V, Nezan J, Vetillard F (2008) Multi-scale habitat selection and foraging ecology of the eurasian hoopoe (Upupa epops) in pine plantations. Biodivers Conserv 17(5):1073–1087. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9241-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlow J, Gardner TA, Araujo IS, Avila-Pires TC, Bonaldo AB, Costa JE, Esposito MC, Ferreira LV, Hawes J, Hernandez MM, Hoogmoed MS, Leite RN, Lo-Man-Hung NF, Malcolm JR, Martins MB, Mestre LAM, Miranda-Santos R, Nunes-Gutjahr AL, Overal WL, Parry L, Peters SL, Ribeiro-Junior MA, da Silva MNF, Motta CD, Peres CA (2007) Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary, and plantation forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:18555–18560. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703333104 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brockerhoff EG, Ecroyd CE, Leckie AC, Kimberley MO (2003) Diversity and succession of adventive and indigenous vascular understorey plants in Pinus radiata plantation forests in New Zealand. For Ecol Manage 185(3):307–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brockerhoff EG, Jactel H, Parrotta JA, Quine CP, Sayer J (2008) Plantation forests and biodiversity: oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers Conserv 17(5):925–951. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9380-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brookshire DS, Thayer MA, Schulze WD, d’Arge RC (1982) Valuing public goods: a comparison of survey and hedonic approaches. Am Econ Rev 72(1):165–177Google Scholar
  10. Bullock JM, Aronson J, Newton AC, Pywell RF, Rey-Benayas JM (2011) Restoration of ecosystem services and biodiversity: conflicts and opportunities. Trends Ecol Evol 26(10):541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulte E, Engel S (2006) Conservation of tropical forests: addressing market failure. In: López R, Toman MA (eds) Economic development and environmental sustainability: new policy options. Oxford University Press, USA, pp 412–452Google Scholar
  12. Busch J, Godoy F, Turner WR, Harvey CA (2011) Biodiversity co-benefits of reducing emissions from deforestation under alternative reference levels and levels of finance. Conserv Lett 4(2):101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Byers BA (2000) Understanding and influencing behaviors in conservation and natural resources management. Biodiversity Support Program, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Cannell MGR (1999) Environmental impacts of forest monocultures: water use, acidification, wildlife conservation, and carbon storage. New For 17(1):239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carnus JM, Parrotta J, Brockerhoff E, Arbez M, Jactel H, Kremer A, Lamb D, O’Hara K, Walters B (2006) Planted forests and biodiversity. J Forest 104(2):65–77Google Scholar
  16. CBD (1992) The Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed 29 October 2009
  17. Chapin FS III, Zavaleta ES, Eviner VT, Naylor RL, Vitousek PM, Reynolds HL, Hooper DU, Lavorel S, Sala OE, Hobbie SE (2000) Consequences of changing biodiversity. Nature 405(6783):234–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Convention on Biological Diversity (2002) Forest biological diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity. Accessed 25 September 2007
  19. Cubbage F, Harou P, Sills E (2007) Policy instruments to enhance multi-functional forest management. For Policy Econ 9(7):833–851. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2006.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dasgupta S, Mody A, Roy S, Wheeler D (2001) Environmental regulation and development: a cross-country empirical analysis. Oxf Dev Studies 29(2):173–187Google Scholar
  21. Deke O (2007) Environmental policy instruments for conserving global biodiversity. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Durst PB, McKenzie PJ, Brown CL, Appanah S (2006) Challenges facing certification and eco-labelling of forest products in developing countries. Intern For Rev 8(2):193–200Google Scholar
  23. Engel S, Pagiola S, Wunder S (2008) Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol Econ 65(4):663–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. FAO (2007) State of the World’s Forests 2007 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  25. Faustmann M (1849) Calculation of the value which forest land and immature stands possess for forestry. J Forest Econ 1(1995) (1):7-44Google Scholar
  26. Ferraro PJ (2001) Global habitat protection: limitations of development interventions and a role for conservation performance payments. Conserv Biol 15(4):990–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ferraro PJ, Kiss A (2003) Will direct payments help biodiversity? (Response). Science 299(5615):1981–1982Google Scholar
  28. Forneri C, Blaser J, Jotzo F, Robledo C (2006) Keeping the forest for the climate’s sake: avoiding deforestation in developing countries under the UNFCCC. Clim Policy 6(3):275–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Franklin JF (1993) Preserving biodiversity - species, ecosystems, or landscapes? Ecol Appl 3(2):202–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Government of Vietnam (2007a) Decision of the Prime Minister on some policies to develop productive planted forests in the period 2007–2015, Decision No 147/2007/QD-TTg dated 10 September 2007, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  31. Government of Vietnam (2007b) Decision of the Prime Minister on the amendments of some policies regarding Five Million Hectare Program, Decision No 100/2007/QD-TTg dated 06 July 2007, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  32. Hartman R (1976) The harvesting decision when a standing forest has value. Econ Inq 14(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huettner M (2012) Risks and opportunities of REDD+ implementation for environmental integrity and socio-economic compatibility. Environ Sci Policy 15(1):4–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. IUCN (1993) Parks for life: Report of the IVth world congress on national parks and protected areas. The International Union for Conservation of Nature, GlandGoogle Scholar
  35. IUCN (2004) 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Accessed 9 August 2012
  36. Janota JJ, Broussard SR (2008) Examining private forest policy preferences. For Policy Econ 10(3):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kamo K, Vacharangkura T, Tiyanon S, Viriyabuncha C, Nimpila S, Doangsrisen B (2002) Plant species diversity in tropical planted forests and implication for restoration of forest ecosystems in Sakaerat, northeastern Thailand. Jpn Agric Res Q 36(2):111–118Google Scholar
  38. Keenan R, Lamb D, Woldring O, Irvine T, Jensen R (1997) Restoration of plant biodiversity beneath tropical tree plantations in Northern Australia. For Ecol Manag 99(1–2):117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kinzig A, Perrings C, Chapin F III, Polasky S, Smith V, Tilman D, Turner B II (2011) Paying for ecosystem services—promise and peril. Science 334(6056):603–604CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Knops JMH, Tilman D, Haddad NM, Naeem S, Mitchell C, Haarstad J, Ritchie M, Howe K, Reich P, Siemann E (2002) Effects of plant species richness on invasion dynamics, disease outbreaks, insect abundances and diversity. Ecol Lett 2(5):286–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koskela E, Ollikainen M, Pukkala T (2007) Biodiversity policies in commercial boreal forests: optimal design of subsidy and tax combinations. For Policy Econ 9(8):982–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lantschner MV, Rusch V, Peyrou C (2008) Bird assemblages in pine plantations replacing native ecosystems in NW Patagonia. Biodivers Conserv 17(5):969–989. doi: 10.1007/s10531-007-9243-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lawson S, MacFaul L (2010) Illegal logging and related trade. The Royal Institute of International Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Lawton JH, Bignell DE, Bolton B, Bloemers GF, Eggleton P, Hammond PM, Hodda M, Holt RD, Larsen TB, Mawdsley NA (1998) Biodiversity inventories, indicator taxa and effects of habitat modification in tropical forest. Nature 391(6662):72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Leadley P, Pereira HM, Alkemade R, Fernandez-Manjarrés JF, Proença V, Scharlemann JPW, Walpole MJ (2010) Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st century change in biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, MontrealGoogle Scholar
  46. Lindenmayer D, Hobbs R (2004) Fauna conservation in Australian plantation forests–a review. Biol Conserv 119(2):151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. List JA, Gallet CA (2001) What experimental protocol influence disparities between actual and hypothetical stated values? Environ Resource Econ 20(3):241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lovera S (2005) Environmental markets impoverish the poor. http://ecosystemmarketplace. Accessed 27 September 2010
  49. McElwee P (2004) You say illegal, I say legal. J Sustain For 19(1):97–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Milne S, Niesten E (2009) Direct payments for biodiversity conservation in developing countries: practical insights for design and implementation. Oryx 43(4):530–541. doi: 10.1017/s0030605309990330 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Miranda M, Porras IT, Moreno ML (2003) The social impacts of payments for environmental services in Costa Rica: a quantitative field survey and analysis of the Virilla watershed, vol 1. International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  52. Murray BC, Abt RC (2001) Estimating price compensation requirements for eco-certified forestry. Ecol Econ 36(1):149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature 403(6772):853–858CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Nghiem THN (2011) Optimal forest management for carbon sequestration and biodiversity maintenance. PhD Thesis, Massey University, Manawatu. Accessed 8 August 2012
  55. Nguyen NB, Nguyen VT, Bui CN, Trinh QT (2006) Why do farmers choose to harvest small-sized timber?—A Survey in Yen Bai Province, Northern Vietnam. Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  56. Pagiola S, Arcenas A, 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 Dev 33(2):237–253. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pawson SM, Brockerhoff EG, Meenken ED, Didham RK (2008) Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape. Biodivers Conserv 17(5):1127–1148. doi: 10.1007/s10531-008-9363-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pouta E (2005) Sensitivity to scope of environmental regulation in contingent valuation of forest cutting practices in Finland. For Policy Econ 7(4):539–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405(6783):212–219CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Reid H, Swiderska K (2008) Biodiversity, climate change and poverty: exploring the links. IIED—International Institute for Environment and Development, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Rivas Palma RM (2008) Environmental and social values from plantation forests: a study in New Zealand with focus on the Hawke’s Bay region. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  62. Salamon LM, Lund MS (1989) The changing tools of government action: an overview. In: Beyond privatization: the tools of government action. The Urban Institute Press, Washington, pp 3–22Google Scholar
  63. Sax DF (2002) Equal diversity in disparate species assemblages: a comparison of native and exotic woodlands in California. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 11(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schaaf KA, Broussard SR (2006) Private forest policy tools: a national survey exploring the American public’s perceptions and support. For Policy Econ 9(4):316–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schneider A, Ingram H (1990) Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. J Politi 52(2):510–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sheldon FH, Styring A, Hosner PA (2010) Bird species richness in a Bornean exotic tree plantation: a long-term perspective. Biol Conserv 143(2):399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Clements R, Wanger TC, Hill JK, Hamer KC, Clough Y, Tscharntke T, Posa MRC, Lee TM (2010a) Conserving Southeast Asian forest biodiversity in human-modified landscapes. Biol Conserv 143(10):2375–2384. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Sodhi NS, Posa M, Lee T, Bickford D, Koh L, Brook B (2010b) The state and conservation of Southeast Asian biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 19(2):317–328. doi: 10.1007/s10531-009-9607-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Resources for the Future, Washington D. C., USAGoogle Scholar
  70. Su-See L (1999) Forest health in plantation forests in South-East Asia. Australas Plant Pathol 28(4):283–291. doi: 10.1071/ap99045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thomas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN, de Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, Hughes L, Huntley B, van Jaarsveld AS, Midgley GF, Miles L, Ortega-Huerta MA, Peterson AT, Phillips OL, Williams SE (2004) Extinction risk from climate change. Nature 427(6970):145–148. doi: 10.1038/nature02121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Tomicevic J, Shannon MA, Milovanovic M (2010) Socio-economic impacts on the attitudes towards conservation of natural resources: case study from Serbia. For Policy Econ 12(3):157–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Trang tin dien tu Uy ban Dan toc (2012) Basic statistics for Yen Bai Province (Mot so thong tin co ban ve Yen Bai)Google Scholar
  74. UNFCCC (2011) REDD Background. Accessed 10 June 2011
  75. Vietnam General Statistics (2012a) Birth rates by region (Tổng tỷ suất sinh phân theo địa phương), Accessed 8 August 2012
  76. Vietnam General Statistics (2012b) Mean population by region (Dân số nam trung bình phân theo địa phương), Accessed 8 August 2012
  77. Vietnam General Statistics (2012c) Mean population by sex and urban, rural areas (Dân số trung bình phân theo giới tính và phân theo thành thị, nông thôn), Accessed 8 August 2012
  78. Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2003) Yield table of 14 dominant tree species in productive planted forests in Vietnam. Agriculture, HanoiGoogle Scholar
  79. Vietnam Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (2007) Forest Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Accessed 12 January 2010
  80. Vihervaara P, Marjokorpi A, Kumpula T, Walls M, Kamppinen M (2012) Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: a case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. For Policy Econ 14(1):58–68Google Scholar
  81. World Bank (2005) Vietnam Environment Monitor 2005: BiodiversityGoogle Scholar
  82. Wunder S (2006) Are direct payments for environmental services spelling doom for sustainable forest management in the tropics. Ecol Soc 11(2):23Google Scholar
  83. Yen Bai Forestry Department (2008) Bao cao hien trang rung (Report on forest status)Google Scholar
  84. Yen Bai Statistical Office (2010) Data on administrative units, land and climate. Accessed 08 August 2012

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and FinanceMassey UniversityManawatuNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Public HealthUniversity of OtagoWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations