Wildlife resource use between migrant ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/12/2021
Views (335) Download (63)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Wildlife resource use between migrant ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples in Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam

Dinh Thanh Sang
J. Bio. Env. Sci.19( 6), 165-173, December 2021.
Certificate: JBES 2021 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

Ethnic minorities in Cat Tien National Park (CTNP) have depended much on the wildlife resources and threatened its ecosystem. Also, the real status in the wildlife use between the indigenous ethnic minorities (IEMs) and the migrant ethnic minorities (MEMs) has been poorly understood. Thus, the field surveys combining the participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with the “walk-in-the-wood” method were used to analyze the wildlife resource use between the IEMs and the MEMs. The findings revealed that both of the groups had a high or a relatively high dependency on the wildlife resources and had a tendency of shifting from self-consumption to income generation purpose (p = 0.000). Besides, the IEMs had a better and greater knowledge of edible wild plants than the MEMs, whereas many more MEMs made and used wild animals for medicinal purposes. The MEMs extracted and used the resources more intensively, but the IEMs used them for more subsistence related to their indigenous culture (χ2 = 26.683, p = 0.000). Based on the findings, wildlife management strategies should emphasize the resource use pattern, the cultural differences and capacity building programs. Likewise, origin-based arrangements would contribute to sustainable wildlife management in CTNP.

VIEWS 29

Carter J, Steenhof B, Haldimann E, Akenshaev N. 2003. Collaborative forest management in Kyrgyzstan: moving from top-down to bottom-up decision-making. Gatekeeper Series 108, 3-18.

Cavendish W. 2000. Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development 28(11), 1979-2003.

Chambers R. 1994. The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Development  22, 953-969.

De Lucena RFP, de Lima AE, de Albuquerque UP. 2007. Does the local availability of woody caatinga plants (Northeastern Brazil) explain their use value? Economic Botany 61, 347-361.

Dinh TS, Ogata K, Nobuya M. 2012. Use of edible forest plants among indigenous ethnic minorities in Cat Tien Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. Asian Journal of Biodiversity 3, 23-49. DOI: http://doi.org /10.7828/ AJOB.V3I1.82

Dinh TS, Ogata K, Yabe M. 2010. Contribution of forest resources to local people’s income: A case study in Cat Tien Biosphere Reserve, Vietnam. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kyushu University 55(2), 397-402. https://doi.org/10.5109/18857

Dinh TS, Pham TV. 2020a. Solutions to ensure sustainable livelihoods for biodiversity conservation in Bu Gia Map National Park. Journal of Forestry Science and Technology 1, 53-61.

Dinh TS, Pham TV. 2020b. Participation of residents in management and biodiversity conservation: a case study in Bu Gia Map National Park. Science and Technology Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development 13, 106-115.

Dinh TS. 2019. Indigenous knowledge of S’tieng ethnic on using edible forest plants in Cat Tien National Park. Can Tho University Journal of Science 55(3B), 8-15. DOI: 10.22144/ctu.jvn.2019.071

Dinh TS. 2020a. Attitudes of ethnic minorities towards biodiversity conservation in Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 32(3), 305-310. https://doi.org/10.26525 /jtfs2020.32.3.305

Dinh TS. 2020b. Assessment of biodiversity conservation potential: A case in the buffer zone of Cat Tien National Park. Journal of Forestry Science and Technology 2, 78-84.

Dinh TS. 2021. Participation of ethnic minorities in natural forest management: Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam case study. Agriculture and Natural Resources 55(2), 273-281. https://doi.org/10.34044

Do TL. 1995. Medicinal plants and traditional remedies in Vietnam, 7th Edition. Science and Techniques Publishing House, Hanoi, Vietnam.

Emerton L, Tran TTH, Mai HT, Hoang VA, Ebert E. 2014. The economic value of Cat Tien National Park. Preservation of biodiversity in forest ecosystems in Vietnam.

Gladman T, Pal V, Sheona S. 2012. Natural resource use, income and dependence among San and Mier communities bordering Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, southern Kalahari, South Africa. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 19(5), 460-470.

Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam [GSRV]. 2015. Decree 75/2015/ND-CP dated on 9 September 2015 of the Government on forest protection development mechanisms and policies, associated with fast and sustainable poverty reduction and assisting ethnic minorities for the period 2015 – 2020.

Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science, American Association for the Advancement of Science 162(3859), 1243-1248.

Jehn E, Doucet L. 1996. Developing Categories from Interview Data: Text Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling. Cultural Anthropology Methods 8(2), 15-16.

Knapp EJ. 2007. Who poaches? Household economies of illegal hunters in western Serengeti, Tanzania. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 12(3), 195-196.

Knapp EJ. 2012. Why poaching pays: a summary of risks and benefits illegal hunters face in Western Serengeti, Tanzania. Tropical Conservation Science 5(4), 434-445.

Mack AL, West P. 2005. Ten thousand tons of small animals: wildlife consumption in Papua New Guinea, a vital resource in need of management. Resource Management in Asia-Pacific. Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 61.

McElwee PD. 2010. Resource use among rural agricultural households near protected areas in Vietnam: the social costs of conservation and implications for enforcement. Environmental Management 45, 113-131.

National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. 2017. The Law on Forestry. No. 16/2017/QH14, November 15, 2017. Hanoi, Vietnam.

Nepal SK, Weber KE. 1993. Struggle for existence: Park-people conflict in the Royal Chitwan National Park, Nepal. Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand.

Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J. 1994. Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press 369.

Pangau-Adam M, Noske R, Muehlenberg M. 2012. Wildmeat or bushmeat? Subsistence hunting and commercial harvesting in Papua (West New Guinea), Indonesia. Human Ecology 40(4), 611-621.

Pham HH. 1999, 2000. An illustrated flora of Vietnam. Youth Publishing House of Ho Chi Minh City.

Pham HK, Vu TT. 2013. Modeling the growth of Gaur (Bos gaurus) population in Cat Tien National Park. Journal of Forest Science and Technology 3, 62-66.

Phillips O, Gentry AH. 1993. The useful plants of Tambopata, Peru: Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47, 15-32.

Polet G. 2003. Co-management in protected areas: The case of Cat Tien National Park, Southern Vietnam. In: Persoon G, Diny ME van Est, Percy E Sajise (Eds) Co-management in protected areas in Asia: a comparative perspective. Nordic Institute of Asian Studies, Denmark, 25-42.

Prance GT, Balee W, Boom BM, Carneiro RL. 1987. Quantitative ethnobotany and the case for conservation in Amazonia. Conservation Biology 1, 296-310.

Scales IR. 2014. The drivers of deforestation and the complexity of land use in Madagascar. In: Scales IR Conservation and environmental management in Madagascar, Routledgep 105-125.

Sills O, Erin A, Lee K. 2003. Forests in a market economy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 260-281.

Tarakini T, Guerbois C, Wencelius J, Mundy P, Fritz H. 2018. Integrating local ecological knowledge for waterbird conservation: Insights from Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area, Zimbabwe. Tropical Conservation Science 11(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940082918803810

Ticktin T. 2004. The ecological implications of harvesting non-timber forest products. Journal of Applied Ecology 41, 11-21.