Research Article |
Corresponding author: Le Thanh An ( ltan@hce.edu.vn ) Academic editor: Thomas Ziegler
© 2018 Le Thanh An, Janusz Markowski, Maciej Bartos.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Citation:
An LT, Markowski J, Bartos M (2018) The comparative analyses of selected aspects of conservation and management of Vietnam’s national parks. Nature Conservation 25: 1-30. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.25.19973
|
The national parks in Vietnam are protected areas in the national system of special-use forests created to protect natural resources and biodiversity. In order to improve the effectiveness of management of national parks, the study assesses some current aspects of conservation and management of natural resources with respect to management plans, financial sources, staff, cooperative activities, causes of limited management capacity and threats to natural resources. Out of the total of 30 national parks, six are under the responsibility of the Vietnam Administration of Forestry (VNFOREST) and 24 national parks are managed by provincial authorities. It was found that most of the national parks have updated their management plans. Financial sources of funding for national parks mainly originated from the central and provincial budgets, with an average of 51% and 76% respectively. Fifty percent of national parks spent 40–60% of their total funding on conservation activities. About 85% of national parks’ staff had academic degrees, typically in the fields of forestry, agriculture and fisheries. Biodiversity conservation was considered a priority cooperative action in national parks with scientific institutes. Major causes of a limited management capacity of national parks included human population growth and pressure associated with resources use, lack of funding, limited human and institutional capacity and land use conflict/land grab. Illegal hunting, trapping, poaching and fishing, the illegal wildlife trade, illegal logging and firewood collecting appeared to be the most serious threats to the conservation and management of natural resources. In addition to these results, significant differences were found between the VNFOREST and provincial parks in terms of financial sources, staff and the threat of illegal logging and firewood collecting. The authors’ findings offer useful information for national park planners and managers, as well as policy makers and researchers in seeking solutions for the sustainable management of natural resources in national parks.
Conservation, financial sources, management, management plan, national parks, staff, Vietnam
National parks (NPs) are the areas established to protect natural biodiversity and the underlying ecological structure, support environmental processes and promote education and recreation (
In Vietnam, NPs are protected areas in the system of special-use forests (SUFs) which are intended to protect nature, including rare species, forest ecosystems and genetic resources. Other objectives include the protection of landscapes, cultural and historical sites and the provision of recreation and tourism (
Distribution of the thirty national parks, Vietnam. Source: Adapted to
Concerning the governance of Vietnam’s NPs, several ministries and agencies are involved in the protection process. The Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MARD) and their provincial departments have overall responsibility for managing protected areas. MARD directly administers NPs with special nature conservation status or those with areas extending across more than one province (
For the conservation and management of protected areas, NPs suffer from lack of funds, as well as growing investments in infrastructure development (
Despite being ranked as the sixteenth most biodiverse country in the world (
The aim of this paper is to assess the management and conservation of natural resources in NPs of Vietnam. More specifically, various aspects of NPs were assessed with regard to their management plan, financial sources, staff, cooperative activities, limited management capacity and threats to natural resources. Different groups of NPs were also compared.
Surveys and interviews were used for the collection of data related to development and management of national parks in Vietnam. A survey method with a structured questionnaire was sent to management boards directly responsible for national park management in 30 NPs in Vietnam (Figure
After pre-testing the questionnaire and submitting comments, a structured questionnaire was developed with a total of 26 questions. This study was part of a wider tourism study in NPs of Vietnam and the survey questionnaire included questions focusing on conservation and management of NPs according to the following main subjects of interest: (1) the management plan, (2) financial sources, (3) NP staff (i.e. the number of staff, level of education and education background), (4) cooperative activities in conservation and management of natural resources, (5) causes of limited management capacity of NPs and (6) threats to natural resources (see Appendix
After contacting the heads of NP management boards in 30 NPs to explain the purpose of the survey, the questionnaire survey was sent by an e-mail; the survey itself was conducted between May and December 2016. This survey was also supplemented with phone calls to the respondents to ensure a high rate of response and to gain an insight into the questionnaire. During survey data collection, further data and information was collected through direct contact with NP units (e.g. Unit of Personnel and Administration, Unit of Planning and Finance, Unit of Science and International Cooperation), as well as provincial departments (e.g. Department of Agriculture and Rural Development) to collect data and information in order to support questions from questionnaire surveys. The final response rate to the survey questionnaire was 30/30.
Moreover, 21 interviews were conducted with randomly chosen members of NP management boards to validate questions of the survey and to gather more detailed information on conservation activities and management of NPs (see Appendix
In this paper, all statistical analyses were performed using STATISTICA 12. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics. The independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test were employed to compare differences between the two groups (
The general characteristics of the 30 surveyed NPs are presented in Table
Characteristics of national parks.
National parks | Year of establishment | Area (ha) | Governance | Other designation |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ba Be | 1992 | 10,048 | PPC | RS, AHP |
Ba Vi | 1991 | 10,815 | VNFOREST | – |
Bach Ma | 1991 | 37,487 | VNFOREST | – |
Bai Tu Long | 2001 | 15,783 | PPC | MPA |
Ben En | 1992 | 14,735 | PPC | – |
Bidoup-Nui Ba | 2004 | 70,038 | PPC | UBR |
Bu Gia Map | 2002 | 25,779 | PPC | – |
Cat Ba | 1986 | 17,363 | PPC | UBR, MPA |
Cat Tien | 1992 | 72,634 | VNFOREST | UBR, RS |
Chu Mom Ray | 2002 | 56,621 | PPC | AHP |
Chu Yang Sin | 2002 | 58,971 | PPC | – |
Con Dao | 1993 | 20,000 | PPC | RS, MPA |
Cuc Phuong | 1962 | 22,200 | VNFOREST | – |
Hoang Lien | 2002 | 28,059 | PPC | AHP |
Kon Ka Kinh | 2002 | 42,143 | PPC | AHP |
Lo Go - Xa Mat | 2002 | 19,156 | PPC | – |
Mui Ca Mau | 2003 | 41,862 | PPC | UBR, RS |
Nui Chua | 2003 | 29,865 | PPC | MPA |
Phong Nha - Ke Bang | 2001 | 123,326 | PPC | UWHS |
Phu Quoc | 2001 | 29,421 | PPC | UBR, MPA |
Phuoc Binh | 2006 | 19,814 | PPC | – |
Pu Mat | 1997 | 91,113 | PPC | UBR |
Tam Dao | 1996 | 34,995 | VNFOREST | – |
Tram Chim | 1998 | 7,588 | PPC | RS |
U Minh Ha | 2006 | 8,528 | PPC | UBR |
U Minh Thuong | 2002 | 8,038 | PPC | UBR, RS, AHP |
Vu Quang | 2002 | 57,038 | PPC | UBR |
Xuan Son | 2002 | 15,048 | PPC | – |
Xuan Thuy | 2003 | 7,100 | PPC | RS |
Yok Don | 1992 | 115,545 | VNFOREST | – |
Total | 1,111,113 |
Of the 30 investigated NPs, the results showed that most of NPs (87%) had updated their management plans. In particular, 77% had management plans which had been updated by other management tools. Only four NPs (13%) indicated that their management plans had not been updated.
The other management tools (e.g. plans, actions) used management plans coordinated and integrated within 23 NPs: two VNFOREST’s NPs and 21 provincial NPs (Table
The national park management plan updated by other management tools.
Management tools | All NPs (n = 23) | VNFOREST’s NPs (n = 2) | Provincial NPs(n =21) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Multiple-use forest management plan | 9 | 39.13 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 42.86 |
Forest monitoring programme | 17 | 73.91 | 2 | 100.00 | 15 | 71.43 |
Regulations for scientific research activities | 21 | 91.30 | 2 | 100.00 | 19 | 90.48 |
Sustainable tourism development plan | 19 | 82.61 | 2 | 100.00 | 17 | 80.95 |
Environmental impact assessment | 7 | 30.43 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 33.33 |
Community-based forest management | 21 | 91.30 | 2 | 100.00 | 19 | 90.48 |
Forest valuation | 5 | 21.74 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 23.81 |
In the current context of socio-economic development, 90% of the 30 NPs indicated that their management plans offered sufficient protection for their development plan(s) for local communities and region(s). Only 10% identified that their management plans were not sufficient for protection because of confusing, conflicting and overlapping institutional and legal frameworks; in addition, a lack of coordination amongst agencies and communities that had a bearing on 7% of NPs; and the non-existence of mechanisms or strategies to engage communities in the management of protected areas was identified in 3% of NPs.
The financial sources of the total funding for conservation and management of NPs in 2016 are presented in Table
Moreover, 50% of NPs used 40–60% of funding for their conservation activities (Table
Percentages of financial sources of the total funding for national parks.
Financial sources | All NPs | VNFOREST’s NPs | Provincial NPs | p-value† | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | ||
The central budget | 15 | 50.95 | 30.88 | 6 | 75.97 | 33.97 | 9 | 34.27 | 12.83 | 0.005* |
The provincial budget | 25 | 76.24 | 23.32 | 1 | 0.60 | 0.00 | 24 | 79.39 | 17.55 | <0.001* |
Support from domestic organisations | 3 | 2.10 | 2.54 | 1 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 2 | 3.00 | 2.83 | 0.579 |
Support from international organisations | 3 | 2.43 | 2.38 | 1 | 0.30 | 0.00 | 2 | 3.50 | 2.12 | 0.434 |
Funds from conservation programmes | 5 | 5.04 | 4.78 | 0 | NA | NA | 5 | 5.04 | 4.78 | NA |
Revenues from forest environmental services | 7 | 9.40 | 8.12 | 2 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 5 | 5.16 | 4.51 | 0.007* |
Revenues from tourism activities | 26 | 8.66 | 13.99 | 6 | 17.17 | 26.05 | 20 | 6.11 | 7.01 | 0.090 |
Percentages of national parks having investment levels of the total funding for conservation activities.
All NPs (n = 30) | VNFOREST’s NPs (n = 6) | Provincial NPs (n = 24) | |
---|---|---|---|
Less than 20% | 3.33 | 0 | 4.17 |
20–40% | 13.33 | 0 | 16.67 |
40–60% | 50.00 | 0 | 45.83 |
60–80% | 26.67 | 66.67 | 25.00 |
80–100% | 6.67 | 33.33 | 8.33 |
Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
The total number of staff within the 30 NPs was 3,127, of which 80% were forest rangers who worked in forest protection stations and 20% in other positions such as administrative and service officers. Each of the 2,501 NP forest rangers administrated an average of 444.26 ha. The mean number of staff per park was 104 persons (SD = 74.87), while 83 persons were forest rangers (SD = 68.65) for each of the 30 NPs. A significant difference in staff numbers was detected between the two groups of NPs (Table
Staff of national parks.
VNFOREST’s NPs (n = 6) | Provincial NPs (n = 24) | p-value† | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Staff | 170.00 | 126.31 | 87.79 | 46.78 | 0.013* |
Staff as forest rangers | 141.67 | 125.99 | 68.79 | 37.18 | 0.017* |
Concerning the educational level of staff, 85% working in 30 NPs had an academic education with graduates from colleges and higher education. On average, 88 NP staff had an academic education (in 30 NPs) while 37 had a non-academic education (in 13 NPs). In addition to the results, a significant difference was found between VNFOREST’s NPs and provincial NPs with respect to the staff’s academic qualifications (Table
For academic education, Table
National parks staff profile according to the level of education.
Level of education | VNFOREST’s NPs | Provincial NPs | p-value† | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | ||
Non-academic | 4 | 63.75 | 93.96 | 9 | 24.56 | 25.97 | 0.251 |
Academic | 6 | 127.50 | 52.94 | 24 | 78.58 | 44.23 | 0.027* |
National parks’ staff by educational background.
Educational background | Staff (%) | Staff as | |
---|---|---|---|
Forest rangers (%) | Others (%) | ||
Forestry, agriculture, fisheries | 74.09 | 83.54 | 36.87 |
Economics, business management, law | 13.24 | 8.94 | 30.17 |
Biology, ecology, environmental protection | 5.43 | 4.45 | 9.31 |
Tourism | 2.72 | 1.42 | 7.82 |
Geography, geology, geographic information system | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.37 |
Archaeology, history, cultural studies | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.19 |
Other majors | 4.11 | 1.28 | 15.27 |
Total | 100.00 | 100.00 | 100.00 |
On average, 98 members of staff in VNFOREST’s NPs had an academic education in the fields of forestry, agriculture and fisheries, but only 57 persons in the provincial NPs did so (Table
Groups of national park staff by educational background.
Educational background | VNFOREST’s NPs | Provincial NPs | p-value† | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SD | n | Mean | SD | ||
Biology, ecology, environmental protection | 5 | 11.60 | 7.89 | 17 | 5.06 | 5.36 | 0.043* |
Economics, business management, law | 5 | 14.00 | 6.29 | 20 | 14.05 | 15.52 | 0.994 |
Forestry, agriculture, fisheries | 6 | 97.50 | 38.95 | 24 | 57.46 | 31.22 | 0.012* |
Tourism | 3 | 4.33 | 2.52 | 13 | 4.54 | 5.62 | 0.953 |
Geography, geology, geographic information system | 1 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 3 | 2.33 | 1.53 | 0.868 |
Archaeology, history, cultural studies | 0 | NA | NA | 2 | 1.00 | 0.00 | NA |
Other majors | 2 | 18.50 | 2.12 | 10 | 7.20 | 9.58 | 0.140 |
It was found that 77% of 30 NPs have cooperated with scientific institutes, e.g. universities and international organisations, in the management and conservation of protected areas. Biodiversity conservation and forest management were the most common cooperative activities observed in NPs, with 77% and 57% of all NPs in them (Table
Percentages of national parks reporting collaborations with different activities.
Management tools | All NPs (n = 30) | VNFOREST’s NPs (n = 6) | Provincial NPs (n =24) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | |
Species monitoring | 13 | 43.33 | 2 | 33.33 | 11 | 45.83 |
Forestry management | 17 | 56.67 | 2 | 33.33 | 15 | 62.50 |
Eco-tourism management and development | 10 | 33.33 | 1 | 16.67 | 9 | 37.50 |
Socio-economic development in buffer zone of the national park | 12 | 40.00 | 1 | 16.67 | 11 | 45.83 |
Biodiversity conservation | 23 | 76.67 | 4 | 66.67 | 19 | 79.17 |
Education and training | 11 | 36.67 | 1 | 16.67 | 10 | 41.67 |
Other activities (e.g. conservation of cultural heritage, historic sites) | 8 | 26.67 | 1 | 16.67 | 7 | 29.17 |
Moreover, 83% of the 30 NPs indicated that their activities involved volunteers and schools in various nature conservation programmes/projects. These projects mainly concentrated on environmental education and training (70% of NPs), survey work and short work–experience placements (47%) and help with practical conservation tasks (43%).
The management boards of the surveyed NPs were requested to use a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to score their perceptions of the major causes of limited management capacity and threats to conservation and management of natural resources.
Table
Major causes of limited management capacity of national parks, rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with a score of 3 representing neutral.
All NPs (n = 30) | VNFOREST’s NPs (n = 6) | Provincial NPs (n = 24) | p-value† | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Lack of funding for the national park | 4.13 | 0.86 | 4.00 | 0.89 | 4.17 | 0.87 | NS |
Lack of enforcement authority for national park management boards | 3.07 | 1.23 | 3.17 | 1.47 | 3.04 | 1.20 | NS |
Overlapping and conflicting institutional mandates | 3.27 | 1.17 | 3.17 | 1.17 | 3.29 | 1.20 | NS |
Focus on hard infrastructure instead of conservation activities | 2.53 | 1.07 | 2.17 | 0.98 | 2.63 | 1.10 | NS |
Limited human and institutional capacity of the national park | 3.60 | 0.97 | 3.33 | 1.03 | 3.67 | 0.96 | NS |
Population and resource use pressure within and around the national park | 4.47 | 0.68 | 4.33 | 0.52 | 4.50 | 0.72 | NS |
Construction of infrastructure within the national park | 2.63 | 0.93 | 2.50 | 0.55 | 2.67 | 1.01 | NS |
Land use conflict/land grab | 3.60 | 1.43 | 3.50 | 1.05 | 3.63 | 1.53 | NS |
Concerning threats to natural resources in NPs, the highest average scores were found for ‘illegal hunting, trapping, poaching, fishing’ (4.23), ‘illegal trade in wildlife’ (3.93) and ‘illegal logging, firewood collecting’ (3.63), indicating that these were the main threats (Table
Threats to natural resources in national parks rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with a score of 3 representing neutral.
All NPs (n = 30) | VNFOREST’s NPs (n = 6) | Provincial NPs (n = 24) | p-value† | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | Mean | SD | ||
Illegal hunting, trapping, poaching, fishing | 4.23 | 0.94 | 4.33 | 0.52 | 4.21 | 1.02 | NS |
Illegal trade in wildlife | 3.93 | 1.08 | 4.17 | 0.75 | 3.88 | 1.15 | NS |
Illegal logging, firewood collecting | 3.63 | 1.13 | 4.67 | 0.52 | 3.38 | 1.10 | 0.009* |
Non-timber forest product collection illegally | 3.40 | 1.25 | 4.17 | 0.75 | 3.21 | 1.29 | NS |
Mineral exploitation, quarrying | 2.17 | 1.26 | 2.00 | 1.27 | 2.21 | 1.29 | NS |
Hydroelectric dam/projects, dams | 2.57 | 1.31 | 2.83 | 1.47 | 2.50 | 1.29 | NS |
Developing dykes and canals | 2.13 | 0.97 | 2.17 | 0.98 | 2.13 | 0.99 | NS |
Existing and planned routes (roads, motorways, train tracks) crossing national park or situated in its vicinity | 3.07 | 1.29 | 2.33 | 1.51 | 3.25 | 1.19 | NS |
Pollution (water, soil, air, noise pollution) | 3.60 | 1.16 | 3.83 | 0.98 | 3.54 | 1.22 | NS |
Land use change | 3.07 | 1.26 | 2.67 | 1.37 | 3.17 | 1.24 | NS |
Tourism development (overlapping intensive tourism and related pressure to invest in tourist infrastructure in the national park and its vicinity) | 2.77 | 1.07 | 2.83 | 0.75 | 2.75 | 1.15 | NS |
The results of the study identify interesting aspects regarding the conservation and management of natural resources in 30 NPs in Vietnam. It was found that some NPs were still using outdated management plans. To protect an area over a given period of time, a documented management plan needs to set out the management approach and goals, together with a framework for decision-making (
These findings indicate that updated NP management plans lacked the potential for integrating other tools and plans (e.g. buffer zone development plan). Many NPs lacked any integration of a biodiversity monitoring programme. In this context, confusion might result when determining biodiversity conservation priorities and effective management of natural resources, e.g. the success of activities taken to conserve or recover species and their habitats. The
Regarding financial sources, these results showed that central and provincial budgets were crucial funding sources to cover the costs of NP management and conservation. Central and provincial budgets are derived from the state budget of the Government of Vietnam. This result was consistent with
In addition to the state budget, significant differences were found between the two groups of NPs with respect to central and provincial budgets (Table
Other important sources of funding for the NPs in Vietnam included support from domestic and international organisations, such as the German Society for International Cooperation and Japan International Cooperation Agency, as well as funds from conservation programmes: for example, the Vietnam Conservation Fund (
The Vietnamese NPs generated their own funds as revenues from forest environmental services and tourism activities. Drawing on the concept of payment for environmental services (PFES), NPs reported incomes from PFES payments from such sources as hydropower and water companies (
Tourism, or rather nature-based tourism, could be a particularly effective tool in the conservation and management of protected areas and can bring direct and indirect benefits; for example, tourism not only generated funds for conservation but also shaped people’s attitudes to the environment and natural resources (
The degree of investment for conservation activities in protected areas was reflected in the percentages of financial allocations. The results showed that NPs were interested in biodiversity conservation and had prioritised investment for conservation, e.g. 40–60% of funds were invested in conservation activities in 50% of NPs and 46% of provincial NPs, (Table
The number and quality of national park staff reflected the capacity of managerial organisation and were central to the success of the management of protected areas. Comparing data from VNFOREST (2014), the total staff size of 30 NPs grew from 2,783 in 2014 to 3,127 in 2016, an increase of 12%. However, it was found that the mean value of land being managed by each forest ranger was 444.26 ha, which was lower than Government guidelines: According to the Government of Vietnam, each forest ranger had to manage 500 ha of protected area (
These results found biodiversity conservation in areas associated with nature protection and NP management, such as the conservation of endangered, rare species and their habitats, to be a priority area for cooperative action with scientific institutes. This demonstrates that the priority of NPs is biodiversity conservation. In addition to cooperative activities, there were organisations (specifically international and non-governmental organisations) whose interventions which aimed to promote biodiversity conservation and the management of natural resources in Vietnam (see
The limited management capacity observed in NPs was attributed to the need for NP managers to deal with the human population growth and the pressure placed on protected areas by resource use (an average score of 4.47). In Vietnam, ca. 31% of population live in or near forests and depended for some part of their subsistence on forest resources (
Strong dependence on the state budget resulted in a lack of sufficient funds for protected areas and limited management capacity for NPs. Even in some NPs, funds only covered full operation and maintenance costs (
Limited human and institutional capacity of NPs and the incidence of land grab, both with a mean score of 3.60, were barriers reported by NP managers. This finding was consistent with previous reports that NPs had to contend with human resources problems, such as a lack of quantity and limited quality of staff working for biodiversity conservation, as well as addressing forest environmental services and nature-based tourism, international cooperative activities and publicity and education for communities (
In the context of management and organisation structure, NP managers indicated some overlapping and conflicting institutional mandates (with an score of 3.27). As discussed by
The focus on hard infrastructure and the construction of infrastructure within protected areas resulted in limited management capacity for NPs. Except for office buildings, 11 out of 30 NPs had a lack of necessary infrastructure (e.g. facilities for scientific research, tourism service and environmental education centre) (
Regarding threats to NP natural resources, the highest average score (4.23) was awarded to illegal hunting, trapping, poaching and fishing. This was consistent with
Illegal logging and firewood collecting were the third serious threat in NPs, even the most serious threat in VNFOREST’s NPs (an average score of 4.46). The limited amount of forest cover and the high demands for timber and wood products played a large role in encouraging illegal logging in Vietnam (
Moreover, the illegal harvesting of non-timber forest products (NTFPs) (e.g. medicinal plants, honey bees and bamboo shoots) threatened the natural resources of the NPs. As commercial demand increased, harvesting rates intensified and over-exploitation of NTFPs occurs, wrecking the ecology, biodiversity and habitats of species. For example, honey was collected for both local utilisation and commercial sale and this practice had been the cause of forest fires which threatened the conservation of species in Pu Mat NP (
Environmental pollution had an influence on an ecosystem, biodiversity losses and degradation of NPs. For example, water pollution could lead to the destruction of natural habitats (
Land use change, existing and planned routes, having the same average scores of 3.07, threatened biodiversity and natural resource management. The conversion of natural forests and wetlands to other forms of land use (e.g. agriculture and aquaculture, industrial plantations, construction land) has led to fragmentation of ecosystems and natural habitats and contributed to the degradation and loss of biodiversity (
Developing dykes, canals and hydroelectric/dam projects had an impact on the loss of biodiversity resources in NPs, such as habitat loss and fragmentation (
Despite scoring 2.77, tourism development could be a potentially important threat to natural resources in NPs. Nature-based tourism might have negative impacts on protected areas, affecting both the environment and species within them (
Vietnam’s NPs function within the system of special-use forests, which is considered the backbone of the national strategy for nature protection in the country (
These findings identify some challenges faced by the conservation and management of natural resources in 30 NPs, including six VNFOREST’s NPs and 24 provincial NPs. The results showed that about 87% of management plans of NPs had been updated. Financial sources for NPs mainly came from the state budget and most of NPs spent about half of their funds on conservation activities. Despite principally depending on the state budget, NPs had opportunities for increasing funding for their conservation and management; for example, NP managers could increase their own funds from nature-based tourism development. Also, having varied sources of funding could help NP managers in their management decisions and ensure the effective implementation of long-term commitments in conservation activities and natural resource management.
Most NPs’ staff were found to have academic degrees. However, this educational background was found to offer little variety across disciplines. Hence, NP managers should continuously concentrate on the development of human resources, including the quantity and quality of staff for undertaking the assigned tasks effectively. In Vietnam’s NPs, biodiversity conservation was a priority cooperative action with scientific institutes.
The present findings indicate the most common causes of limited management capacity of NPs to be (1) the pressure placed by the human population growth and resource use pressure within and around protected areas, (2) the lack of funding, (3) limited human and institutional capacity and (4) land use conflict/land grab. These results also indicated that (1) illegal hunting, trapping, poaching and fishing; (2) illegal wildlife trade; and (3) illegal logging and firewood collecting were regarded as the most serious threats to natural resources in NPs. Significant differences were also found between the VNFOREST’s NPs and provincial NPs with respect to financial sources of funding (the central and provincial budgets, revenues from forest environmental services) and staff. Except for the threat of illegal logging and firewood collecting, no significant differences were detected between the two groups with respect to causes of limited management capacity and threats to natural resources.
Further research can build upon the findings of this study to seek solutions and strategies for effective management of NPs. The findings of this study partly may provide useful information for protected area planners, managers and policy makers, as well as researchers and allow them to more effectively manage and conserve the biodiversity of Vietnam’s NPs. It is hoped that this study will support the effective management of NPs and the sustainable management of natural resources and biodiversity protection in Vietnam.
The authors would like to thank the managers of NPs who spent their time responding to the survey and interviews. Acknowledgement of financial support is attributed to the Polish Ministry of National Education and the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training for awarding PhD scholarships. We would also like to thank the reviewers who helped us to greatly improve the manuscript.
Questionnaire for the survey on conservation and management of the national park.
I. General information about the national park | |||||||||||||||||||
1. Name and location of the national park | |||||||||||||||||||
a) Name of the national park: ……………………………
b) Location: …………….…District…….…………….Province………. |
|||||||||||||||||||
2. Who is responsible for the administration of the national park?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Provincial People’s Committee (Please specify……………………….………….)
□ Vietnam Administration of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development |
|||||||||||||||||||
II. Area and designations | |||||||||||||||||||
3. What is the area of the national park and its buffer zones? | |||||||||||||||||||
a)……………... ha of the total area of the park, including ……….ha of marine area b)………………ha of buffer zones, of which marine area covers ..………..ha |
|||||||||||||||||||
4. Other designations of the national park, | |||||||||||||||||||
a) Was the national park or national park areas recognized/designated regional/international agreements?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ NO
□ YES, Go to b) |
|||||||||||||||||||
b) Please select regional/international designations?
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ UNESCO Natural World Heritage Sites
□ UNESCO Biosphere Reserves □ Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Sites) □ Others (Please specify……………………………………) |
□ ASEAN Heritage Parks
□ Marine Protected Areas |
||||||||||||||||||
II. Management Plan | |||||||||||||||||||
5. Concerning the national park management plan, | |||||||||||||||||||
a) Which updating status of the management plan has been applied for current management of the national park?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Outdated Management Plan
□ Updated Management Plan □ Management Plan updated by more management tools. Go to b) |
|||||||||||||||||||
b) Please select other management tools as flows:
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Community based forest management
□ Multiple – use forest management plan |
□ Forest valuation
□ Forest monitoring programme |
||||||||||||||||||
□ Environmental impact assessment
□ Regulations for research activities in the national park □ Sustainable eco-tourism/tourism development plan □ Others (Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
6. In the current context of socio-economic development, | |||||||||||||||||||
a) Does the management plan provide a sufficient protection in relation to developmental plan(s) of local communities and region(s)?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ YES
□ NO. Go to b) |
|||||||||||||||||||
b) If NO, it is a result of
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Lack of constantly updated debates
□ Lack of coordination among agencies and communities that have a bearing on the park □ Confusing, conflicting and overlapping institutional and legal frameworks □ Non-existence of mechanisms and strategies to engage communities in the conservation of the park □ Others (Please specify………………….) |
|||||||||||||||||||
III. Financial sources | |||||||||||||||||||
7. Concerning financial sources of the total funding for the national park in 2016, | |||||||||||||||||||
a) What is the percentage of financial sources of the total funding?
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Financial sources | Percent | If possible, please specify in VND million | |||||||||||||||||
□ The state budget | |||||||||||||||||||
□ The provincial budget | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Supports from domestic organizations
(Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Supports from international organizations
(Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Funds of conservation programs
(Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Revenues from forest environmental services | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Revenues from tourism activities | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Others
(Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Total | 100 | ||||||||||||||||||
b) What is the percentage of the total funding for the national park invested in conservation activities in 2016?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ 10 | □ 20 | □ 30 | □ 40 | ||||||||||||||||
□ 50 | □ 60 | □ 70 | □ 80 | ||||||||||||||||
□ Other (Please specify …………. %) | |||||||||||||||||||
IV. Cooperative activities | |||||||||||||||||||
8. Have the national park cooperated with scientific institutes in conservation and national park management?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ NO
□ YES. Go to b), and c) |
|||||||||||||||||||
b) If YES, which scientific institutes?
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Vietnamese Academy of Forest Sciences | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Domestic universities (Please specify………………………………………) | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Foreign universities/institutes (Please specify………………………………………) | |||||||||||||||||||
□ NGOs (Please specify………………………………………) | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Others (Please specify………………………………………) | |||||||||||||||||||
c) What kind of cooperative activities have been cooperated with scientific institutes in the national park?
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Species monitoring | □ Education and training | ||||||||||||||||||
□ Biodiversity conservation | □ Forestry management | ||||||||||||||||||
□ Eco-tourism management and development | □ Cultural heritage conservation | ||||||||||||||||||
□ Socio-economic development in buffer zone of the national park
□ Others (Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
9. For conservation programmes/projects in the national park, | |||||||||||||||||||
a) Has the national park involved schools, volunteers in various projects?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ NO
□ YES. Go to b) |
|||||||||||||||||||
b) If YES, please specify in which?
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
□ Environmental education and training/Education services
□ Help with practical conservation tasks □ Survey work and short work – experience placements □ Others (Please specify………………………………………) |
|||||||||||||||||||
10. How many academic papers were published by park’s staff in the previous 5 years, including co-authors of papers?
(Please mark (√) only one appropriate box) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Subject area of | Journals | Books | Other papers
(Please specify…………) |
||||||||||||||||
□ Biology, ecology, nature conservation | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Economics, business management, law | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Forestry, agriculture, fishery | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Tourism | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Geography, geology, geomorphology | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Archeology, history, cultural heritage conservation | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Others (Please specify……………) | |||||||||||||||||||
V. Causes of limited management capacity | |||||||||||||||||||
11. Please tell us how you feel about the following statement concerning causes of limited management capacity of the national park towards conservation and natural resource management?
(For each statement, please circle the number that is appropriate under one of the five categories which applies SD - Strongly disagree, D - Disagree, N - Neutral, A - Agree, SA - Strongly agree) |
|||||||||||||||||||
SD | D | N | A | SA | |||||||||||||||
a) The park suffers from a lack of funding for conservation activities and national park management | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
b) The park suffers from a lack of enforcement authority for national park management boards | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
c) There are overlapping and conflicting institutional mandates | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
d) The park has focused on hard infrastructure instead of conservation activities | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
e) The park suffers from a lack of limited human and institutional capacity | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
f) There is the population growth and resource use pressure within and around the park. | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
g) There is under construction of infrastructure within protected areas | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
h) There is suffering from land use conflict/land grab | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
VI. Threats to natural resources | |||||||||||||||||||
12. Please tell us how you feel about the following statement concerning current threats to biodiversity and natural resources in the national park?
(For each statement, please circle the number that is appropriate under one of the five categories which applies SD - Strongly disagree, D - Disagree, N - Neutral, A - Agree, SA - Strongly agree) |
|||||||||||||||||||
SD | D | N | A | SA | |||||||||||||||
There is illegal hunting, trapping, poaching, fishing | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
There is illegal trade in wildlife | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
There is illegal logging, firewood collecting | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
Illegal non-timber forest product collection is present | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
Mineral exploitation or quarrying is present | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
There are hydroelectric dam/projects, dams | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
Dykes and canals are under development | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
Existing and planned routes (roads, motorways, train treks) cross the park or are situated in its vicinity | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
There is pollution (water, soil, air, noise pollution) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
There is land use change | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
There is the tourism development (overlap intensive tourism and related pressure to invest in tourist infrastructure in the national park and its vicinity) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||||||||||||||
VII. The national park staff | |||||||||||||||||||
13. How many employees work in the national park, according to level of education and educational background?
(You may choose more than one by marking (√) appropriate boxes) |
|||||||||||||||||||
The total number of staff | Staff as forest rangers | Staff as others | |||||||||||||||||
a) Levels of education of national park staff | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Unlearned | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Primary school and lower | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Intermediate school | |||||||||||||||||||
□ High school | |||||||||||||||||||
□ College graduates and higher. Go to b) | |||||||||||||||||||
b) National park staff by educational background in the field of | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Biology, ecology, environmental protection | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Economics, business management, law | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Forestry, agriculture, fishery | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Tourism | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Geography, geology, geographic information system | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Archeology, history, cultural heritage conservation | |||||||||||||||||||
□ Other majors (Please specify…………….) | |||||||||||||||||||
VIII. General information on the respondent | |||||||||||||||||||
All personal information will be confidential. | |||||||||||||||||||
a) Position in the national park: …………………………………
b) Email address: ………………………………… c) Telephone number: ……………………………… d) Date of response: ………………………………… |
|||||||||||||||||||
If you wish to provide feedback for improvement of this survey, please add any further comments/suggestions below. |
Questions for interviews with members of national park management boards
1. What do you think about the development of ecotourism/nature-based tourism in the national park as alternative livelihoods of local residents who live within and around the park? |
2. What are your opinions about trends of financial sources on funding for the park as well as conservation activities and natural resource management? |
3. What do you think about the roles of the park’s own fundraising (e.g. revenues from tourism activities) as well as its financial autonomy in the contribution to conservation and management of the park? |