Forest environmental income in Vietnam: Household socioeconomic factors influencing forest use
Abstract
SUMMARY: Much research has focused on understanding the importance of forest environmental income in different communities and highlighting key socioeconomic characteristics of forest-dependent households. This paper examines the economic importance of forests among rural agriculturalists in Vietnam. Data were collected through a questionnaire survey of 104 households in five study villages in Ha Tinh province in north central Vietnam surrounding the Ke Go Nature Reserve (KGNR). Variables such as migration status of the household, age, income class and landholdings were used to identify characteristics of households with high forest income in both absolute and relative terms. More than half of households reported receiving forest environmental income in cash. Socioeconomic variables were compared between forest cash income (FCI) households and non-FCI households. Non-FCI households had more alternative income sources from wage labour and livestock, while FCI households were significantly younger, tended to live closer to the forest and had larger landholdings. Contrary to other research on forest use, the households deriving the most forest income in both absolute and relative terms were not the poorer households, but those in the middle class. These findings highlight the need for conservation and development projects to pay attention to the specific household factors that influence forest use, rather than relying on assumptions that poverty and forests are always linked.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Environmental income is more important to households with young household heads.
“In general, we find support for environmental income being more important to households with young household heads (c.f. McElwee, 2008), to large households (in contrast to Mamo et al., 2007 who found the opposite in their case study), and to less-educated households (e.g., Babulo et al., 2008; Mamo et al., 2007; Vedeld et al., 2007).”
From Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis (2014) · cites this paper as McElwee, 2008
Cites
Agricultural Involution: The Processes of Ecological Change in Indonesia
Geertz, C. (1963) · doi:10.1525/9780520341821 · Cited by 1,297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental Income and Rural Livelihoods: A Global-Comparative Analysis
Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., Börner, J., Smith-Hall, C., & Wunder, S. (2014) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.03.006 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
- Authors
- MCELWEE, P. D.
- Affiliations
- Arizona State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- MCELWEE, PAMELA D.
- ORCID
- MCELWEE, PAMELA D.
- Venue
- Environmental Conservation
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2008-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 147-159
- ISSN
- 0376-8929 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-4387
- OpenAlex
- W1985855653
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Environmental Conservation (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Wenner-Gren Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Forestry › Forest Ecology and Conservation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Keywords
- forest-dependent households, household socioeconomic factors, Ha Tinh province, land ownership, alternative income sources
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review