The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business

Korea Distribution Science Association (한국유통과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Critical Factors on Forest Land Management in Vietnam

  • TRAN, Thai Yen (Nghe An University of Economics) ;
  • PHAM, Phuong Nam (Department of Land Management, Faculty of Natural Resources and Environment, Vietnam National University of Agriculture)
  • Received : 2022.06.30
  • Accepted : 2022.09.30
  • Published : 2022.10.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The study aims to determine the influencing factors and their impact on the management of the forest land used for production allotted to peasant households and proposes solutions to improve its management. Secondary data was calculated until the end of 2019 at state agencies. The primary data was collected through 2 steps. To determine the factors influencing forest land management for production, step one involved a survey of 100 households that were given access to forest land. Step 2 involved a survey of 215 households to determine how factors impacted the Likert scale's five levels. The study also used a multivariate regression model and SPSS24.0 software to determine the impact rates of factor groups. The study indicated 43 factors that belong to 11-factor groups affecting the management of forest land for production. The policy and legal factors group is the most influential, with an impact rate of 12.72%, followed by 10 other factor groups with impact rates ranging from 4.08% to 11.74%. The solutions include improving policies and laws, strengthening the dissemination of policies and laws; encouraging investment, completing cadastral work, intensifying inspection, examination, and sanctioning of administrative violations of land, upgrading the infrastructure system, and ensuring enough human resources to manage forest land.

Keywords

1. Introduction

According to the provisions of the land law of Vietnam, the forest land for production is forested land and land currently being used for forest development for the primary purpose of providing forest products; combined production and business of forestry, agriculture, and fishery; ecotourism, convalescence, and entertainment; providing forest environment services (Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, 2018). In Vietnam, forest land in particular and land in general, belong to the entire people’s ownership, which is represented and managed by the State. Households, individuals, and organizations are not allowed to own land, only use land through land allocation, land lease, or recognition by the State (National Assembly, 2013). The forest land for production allocation quota for each household does not exceed 30 hectares. The term of land allocation to households directly engaged in agricultural production is 50 years. The policy on forest land allocation to households was implemented in the 90s of the twentieth century. Forest land allocation aims to improve forest quality, increase forest cover and contribute to poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods for upland people (Secretariat of the Party Central Committee, 2017). However, in many countries around the world, including Vietnam, there has been a situation of forest exploitation and unscientific use of forest land, leading to a decrease in the area of forest due to indiscriminate exploitation or forest fire, and many species of animals are hunted and endangered (Kusters & Belcher, 2004; Murray & Clapham, 2020; Rantala et al., 2012).

Up to now, there have been many different studies on forest land. Specifically, some studies have focused on assessing the role of forest land and pointed out forest land plays a particularly important role in the socio-economic development of each country (Lasco & Pulhin, 2006; Li, 2002). Some other studies only focused on evaluating community-based management models for forests and forest land (Pulhin & Pulhin, 2003); or analyzing the strengths and limitations of community-based forest management in different locations and proposing solutions to improving the livelihoods of communities and forest use (Gilmour, 2016; Nath et al., 2016).

Some studies focused on assessing the status of forest land use and management (Bopp et al., 2020; Saint-Macary et al., 2010). Other studies focused on assessing the status of forest land managed by limited liability companies (Hautdidier et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2017). Su et al. (2021) studied the influence of forests on soil erosion. Bopp et al. (2020) studied the influence of forests and reforestation subsidies on people’s income. Beygi et al. (2020) researched the influence of armed conflict on forest land and forests. Some other studies focused on the evaluation of changes in biomass carbon stocks in land use management (Olorunfemi et al., 2019).

Yang et al. (2018) researched climate influences on forest cover in areas where there is a large variation in land cover. Milheiras and Mace (2019) assessed the provision of ecosystem services in tropical areas with high forest cover. Schürmann et al. (2020) assessed the relationship between land tenure issues and changing land cover around forests. Meli and Brancalion (2019) researched and proposed solutions to balance land saving and sharing approaches to promote forest and landscape restoration in agricultural landscapes. Ferreira et al. (2019) studied the role of forests in preventing the negative effects of land use and climate change on water ecosystem services. Bose et al. (2017) studied the rights to forests and land of rural women. Coomes et al. (2017) examined tropical forest constraints of nomadic agriculture and the role of tropical forests. Toumbourou (2020) examined issues, interventions in forest management and decision-making, and formalizes land boundaries.

Tuffour-Mills et al. (2020) used a mixed approach to investigate trends and dynamics of land use and land cover change. Rosa et al. (2020) investigated the rehabilitation of recreational use of forest land by landmine rehabilitation. Bicudo da Silva et al. (2020) researched land use and cover in mountainous areas. Ingalls et al. (2018) examined risky commodity trade in forests and land transactions. Pichler et al. (2020) studied the influence of forest conversion on environmental and ecological issues. Ioki et al. (2019) studied land-use planning with the participation of local communities in the buffer zone, to enhance the implementation of the Human and Biosphere Program. Pham and Pham (2014) and Pham (2015) studied community-based forest land management in terms of theory and practice. Research by Bui et al. (2019) analyzed the factors affecting the mobilization of financial resources for the development of natural forests and the advantages and disadvantages related to this issue. Sikor and Ngoc (2007) studied the results of the decentralization of forest land management in the Central Highlands of Vietnam through the allocation of forest land and forests to local people for management. Thuy and Lam (2020) focused on assessing the current status of forest land use allocated to households in two highland villages in Cho Don district, Bac Kan province. Clement and Amezaga (2009) analyzed the gap between policy intentions and outcomes when afforestation and forestland allocation in Northern Vietnam. Pham (2020) studied community-based forest land use and management solutions in Hoa Binh province.

The above studies have assessed one or several issues related to forest land management but have not explored in depth yet the factors affecting forest land management, including the forest land for production. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following questions: What factors affect the management of forest land for production, and to what extent? What policies should be proposed to improve the management of forest land for production in the coming time?

Affecting factors, in general, and factors affecting forest land management, in particular, are components that change things and phenomena, including forest land phenomenon (Fuadah et al., 2020; Hoang & Kien, 2020; Navavongsathian et al., 2020). Forest land management is a type of management that is the influence of the manager on the person being managed to achieve the manager’s goals (Kulchittivej et al., 2020; Potharla et al., 2021). Forest land management in Vietnam is managed by the State with the participation of the people to use forest land effectively and protect the environment.

2. Data and Methods

The study selected Lai Chau province (Figure 1) as the pilot site for the model to determine the factors affecting the management of forest land for production that was allocated to households for management. This is because the largest area of allocated forest land for production (60,998.96 ha) is managed by 5,230 households in the research area. In particular, the management of forest land for production, besides the advantages, still has many difficulties and shortcomings, but up to now, there has not been any in-depth study to address these issues (People’s Committee of Lai Chau province, 2020).

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_f0001.png 이미지

Figure 1: Geographical Location Map of Lai Chau Province

The secondary data on natural and socio-economic conditions was collected at the Bureau of Statistics of Lai Chau province; the secondary data on land management, including forest land management, were collected at the Department of Natural Resources and Environment of Lai Chau Province. The primary data was collected through 2 steps. The first step was to identify factors that might affect the management of forest land for production allocated to households. Specifically, the survey was randomized with pre-printed questionnaires of households that were allocated forest land for production. The content of the survey included basic household information and assessment opinions on hypothetical factors affecting the management of forest land for production. The hypothetical factors were inherited by the other authors from relevant studies and consultation with village elders, village leaders, and experts related to forest land for production management. In addition to the assumptions that were included in the questionnaire, respondents could also add other factors that they think would affect it. The affecting factors selected (Table 1) to investigate their impact rates in the second step were the factors with an evaluation rate of more than 50% of the total number of survey respondents. The number of respondents to the survey was determined by formula 1 (Yamane, 1967).

Table 1: Factor Groups Affecting the Management of Forest Land for Production

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_t0001.png 이미지

\(\begin{aligned}n=\frac{N}{1+N * e^{2}}\end{aligned}\)      (1)

Where: n - number of respondents to the survey; N - number of households that are allocated forest land for production; e - tolerance (e = 5–15%). Choosing e = 10% (mean value of tolerance) and for N = 5,230 households, there is n = 98, rounding n = 100. The survey results show that 43 factors had an evaluation rate of over 50% of the total number of respondents and are divided into 11 groups of factors according to the characteristics of the factors (Table 1).

In the second stage, survey respondents were asked to rate the impact of the first step’s chosen factors on managing productivity on forest land. The level of influence of each factor was assessed on a 5-level Likert scale (Very influential - 5 points; fair influential - 4 points; medium influential - 3 points; little influential - 2 points; very little influential - 1 point) (Likert, 1932).

The multivariate regression model evaluates the influence of groups of factors on forest land for production management as formula 2 (Figure 2).

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_f0002.png 이미지

Figure 2: Research Model of Factors Affecting Management of Forest Land for Production

Y = β1 * PL + β2 * NA + β3 * IN + β4 * EC + β5 * HO + β6 * CA + β7 * HU + β8 * MA + β9 * FI + β10 * IM + β11 * PT + βo (2)

Where: Y – The dependent variable represents the level of influence on the forest land for production management, which has been allocated to the household; the independent variable represents the influence of forest land for production management; β1; β2; β3; β4; β5; β6; β7; β8; β9; β10; β11: Regression coefficients of the corresponding independent variables are policy and legal; natural; infrastructure; economic; household; cadastral; human; market; financial; implementation; plot factor groups; βo: Constant; PL, NA, IN, EC, HO, CA, HU, MA, FI, IM, PT: The independent variables, respectively are the groups of policy and legal; natural; infrastructure; economic; household; cadastral; human; market; financial; implementation; plot factors.

The number of samples was determined based on the requirements of the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multivariate regression with at least 5 observations for 1 measurement variable (Hoang & Nguyen, 2008). Therefore, with 43 measurement variables, the number of samples was 215. For multivariate regression analysis, the minimum sample size to achieve was 50 + 8 * p (p is the number of variables - p = 11) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996), so the minimum number of samples to be surveyed was 50 + 8 * 11 = 138. To ensure both the minimum requirement of exploratory factor analysis and multivariate regression analysis, the survey investigated 215 people.

The survey data on affecting factors and their influences were processed by SPSS24.0 software. The reliability of the scale is verified by Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. The data ensures reliability when Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients are in the range from 0.60 to 0.95 (Hair et al., 1998), total correlation coefficient > 0.3 (Hair et al., 1998). The exploratory factor analysis is used to shorten many measurement variables into a set of variables (factors) to make them more meaningful but still contain most of the information of the original set of variables (Hair et al., 1998). The EFA is assessed through KMO appropriate coefficient, Bartlett test, Eigenvalue coefficients, total explanatory variance, and load factor. The variables are only accepted when KMO is in the range from 0.5 to 1.0, and its weight factors in other factors are less than 0.35 (Igbaria et al., 1989) or the distance between two load weights (Factor loading) the same variable in 2 different factors greater than 0.3. According to Hair et al. (1998), with a sample size of about 200, weights of 0.40 should be chosen, so for sample size 215, in this study, we choose a load weight greater than 0.40. Besides, the scale is only accepted when the total variance explained (Total variance explained) is greater than 50%; Barlett’s coefficient with a significance level less than 0.05 to ensure the factors are correlated with each other; Eigenvalue coefficients are valued from 1 to ensure the groups of factors are different.

3. Results and Discussion

Lai Chau province is about 450 km from Hanoi capital. By December 31, 2019, Lai Chau province had 456,300 people from 20 ethnic groups, of which: Thai people accounted for 33.5%, H’Mong people accounted for 23.6%, Kinh people accounted for 11.2%, Ha Nhi people accounted for 5.6%, the rest of the other ethnic groups. Labor in the age of working in the economic sectors of the province is 274,610 people, of which urban workers are 45,120 people, accounting for 16.67% of the total workforce; workers in rural areas are 229,490 people, accounting for 83.33% of the total number of employees. The labor force is quite abundant, but the quality of the labor force is not high, especially the rate of trained workers in the agricultural and forestry production sector is low, so the ability to access and apply scientific advances. The technology in agricultural - forestry production in the locality is limited. The total area of rice and corn is 54,475 ha, the total area of tea is 6,183 ha; the area of rubber trees put into exploitation is 3,446 ha (People’s Committee of Lai Chau province, 2020).

The energy industry is the sector that accounts for the largest proportion of the industrial production value of the whole province (accounting for over 90%). The province has 8 tea processing enterprises and 3 cooperatives, in addition, there are small wood processing and manufacturing establishments in the area, mainly producing to serve the needs of the province and some neighboring provinces. Agricultural and forestry product production and processing enterprises are gradually renovating their processing equipment and technology towards applying high technology to improve product quality and value. Tourism service activities continue to grow strongly, and tourism promotion and promotion are concerned. Cultural tourism activities and communities develop rapidly. Some investment projects in tourism have been completed and put into operation, attracting domestic and foreign tourists to visit (People’s Committee of Lai Chau province, 2020).

By the end of December 31, 2019, the area of forest land for production allocated to 5,230 households for management was 60,998.96 ha (Table 2). The percentage of land area certified is 98.70%. Due to the border or land use right dispute that has not been resolved, a portion of forest land (1.30%) has not been certified. The main crops are trees for timber (camellia) and cardamom, and tea (People’s Committee of Lai Chau province, 2020).

Table 2: Results of Forest Land for Production Allocation and Certification

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_t0002.png 이미지

The results of assessing the reliability of the scale through Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients for 11-factor groups show that Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients range from 0.741 to 0.897. The correlation coefficient of the total variable is greater than 0.3 (Table 3). Thus, the scale used to evaluate the factors affecting forest land management is reliable and suitable for subsequent analysis.

Table 3: Results of Reliability Analysis of the Scale

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_t0003.png 이미지

The EFA’s suitability test is done through KMO appropriate coefficient. The research results have determined that KMO = 0.887 and satisfies the condition of 0.5 < KMO < 1, making it appropriate to analyze the discovery factor using actual data. Besides, Barlett test results give Sig values equal to 0.00 and less than 0.05 (Table 4). This proves that the measurement variables are linearly correlated with the representative factor. The load factor of the components is greater than 0.60 (Table 5), so EFA has practical significance. independent variables ensure the accuracy included in the regression analysis model to determine the impact rates of factor groups on the management of forest land for production.

Table 4: KMO and Bartlett’s Test Results

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_t0004.png 이미지

Table 5: Weights of a Rotation Matrix

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_t0005.png 이미지

The results of multivariate regression analysis in Table 6 show the Sig. coefficient equals 0.00 less than the significance level of α = 1%, so the regression model is significant, and the independent variables affect the dependent variable Y. The adjusted R2 value equal to 0.801 shows the independent variables affect 80.1% of the change of the dependent variable; the remaining 19.9% is due to non-model variables and random errors. In addition, the Durbin Watson coefficient has a value of 1.791, ranging from 1.5 to 2.5, so no first-order correlation occurs. The variance inflation factor (VIF) of all variables included in the model is less than 2, so the research model does not have multi-collinear phenomena. In addition, the variables included in the study are statistically significant (Sig. equals 0.00 and is less than 0.05). From the standardized regression coefficient, the regression equation has been determined as follows:

Table 6: Results of Regression Analysis

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_t0006.png 이미지

Y = 0.892 * PL + 0.710 * NA + 0.629 * IN + 0.823 * EC + 0.749 * HO + 0.772 * CA + 0.286 * HU + 0.381 * MA + 0.656 * FI + 0.675 * IM + 0.438 * PT – 5.608

The data processing results show that all 43 factors belonging to 11 groups of factors satisfy the test requirements. The degree of influence of the groups of factors on the management of forest land for production varies (from 4.08% to 12.72%) (Figure 3). The group of factors of policy and law has the largest influence (accounting for 12.72%). The reason is that some regulations on land allocation and management of forest land are still limited, such as regulations on land allocation terms and limits, making it difficult for households to access forest land and invest in forest development. Besides, policies to support the production and sale of forest products have not been given due attention. Households have not yet been guided about production in combination with typical product development or tourism. Financial support policies or attracting and encouraging resources to participate in developing production forests are not strong enough to attract investors. In addition, ethnic minorities’ understanding and observance of the law on land and forest protection are still limited due to their low educational level, and limited awareness and understanding of legal provisions. This has a negative influence on the efficient management of forest land.

OTGHEU_2022_v9n9_167_f0003.png 이미지

Figure 3: Influence Ratio of the Factor Groups on the Forest Land for Production Management

The group of factors having the second-largest influence is the group of economic factors with an impact rate of 11.74%. The affecting factors in this group include the source of income, the level of income, and the level of the household’s living standards from the management of forest land. The survey shows that income from using forest land for production is not sufficient for households because income from forests is low and mainly from forest product exploitation. The cadastral factor group has an impact rate of 11.01% and is ranked in the third position due to the problem of cadastral records, the updating of cadastral records on forest land is still not a good, and incorrect determination of the boundaries of many land parcels. Therefore, it has led to disputes, encroachment, and forest land encroachment, causing instability of security and order. In addition, many forest land plots have not been certified.

The group of household factors including the total number of people, the total number of main employees, and the qualifications of the main workers, also influence forest land management with an impact rate of 10.68%. The main reason is that income from forests has not yet secured a living, people lack sufficient qualifications, and they do not want to change the way of production and business. The natural group with an impact rate of 10.13% also affects the management of forest land due to the complicated topography and the poor traffic, thus adversely affecting the management of forest land. Especially the quality of the forest and the ability to bring income to the people is also limited. The group of factors of organization and management to implement policies and laws on forest land for production has the 6th influence with an impact rate of 9.63%. Specifically, the propaganda and dissemination of policies and laws on forest land management have not been paid attention to, so the regulations have not been fully grasped by the people. Besides, inspection, examination, and sanctioning of administrative violations are not good; the settlement of disputes related to forest land is still slow and incomplete.

The financial group includes the loan amount, bank interest, loan term, mortgage procedures, and forest management funds that have an influence on forest land management with an impact rate of 9.36%. Among the borrowed money, the bank interest rate and mortgage procedures are considered by households to be the most influential when they need to borrow capital to invest in production because currently, access to credit is a problem. The group of infrastructure factors has an impact rate of 8.97% and ranks eighth in the groups of factors affecting the management of forest land for production. Factors belonging to the group of infrastructure factors are transport, irrigation, and communication. The group of land parcel elements includes the area of the allocated forest land, the distribution of the land plots, the type of forest land, and the type of forest that affects the management of forest land. This group of factors has an impact rate of 6.25% and occupies ninth place. The group of market factors includes factors such as the type of forest product, its price, the supply and demand for that commodity, and the distribution channel that influences the use of productive forest land in proportion to the influence of 5.43%. The group of human resources, including the qualifications and the number of cadres and civil servants involved in the management of forest land, also affect the management of forest land with the smallest impact rate (4.08%).

For the management of forest land allocated to households to be more complete, it is necessary to implement some priority measures based on the impact rate of the groups of factors indicated above. First of all, it is necessary to improve policies and laws related to the management of forest land such as removing the quota of forest land allocation, the term of use of forest land for production, and implementing forestland allocation according to the user needs of the family hold and according to the local forest land fund. In addition, it is necessary to promulgate policies to support plants and animals for producers to combine with forest protection and increase income. When households have capital needs, they need to apply preferential interest rates with simple mortgage lending procedures and quick disbursement. In particular, it is necessary to attract capital investors and households doing business on forest land for productions such as forest product exploitation, livestock husbandry, tourism, and other activities. In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the propaganda and dissemination of policies and laws on forest land management so that people can understand and comply. Regarding the group of cadastral factors, it is necessary to continue to measure and place landmarks on land plots of land users and issue land use right certificates for the unlicensed forest land to limit disputes and land encroachment. In terms of implementation, it is necessary to strengthen the directing role of all levels and sectors in forest land management and regularly inspect, examine, and sanction violations of forest land legislation, and at the same time, decide to end all land disputes. In terms of infrastructure, it is necessary to support localities in upgrading rural roads, irrigation, and communication systems for forest production and protection, as well as developing other businesses. Besides, it is necessary to ensure enough human resources in terms of quantity and professional qualifications to meet the requirements of forest land management.

4. Conclusion and Recommendations

All 43 hypothetical factors belonging to 11 groups of factors included in the analysis model affect the management of forest land for production with different impact rates (from 4.08% to 12.72%). The group of factors of policy and law on forest land management has the largest impact rate (12.72%), followed by the 10 groups of factors: economics; cadastral; family; nature; implementation of management; finance; Infrastructure; parcel of land; forest product market; human resources with the corresponding impact rates of 11.74%; 11.01%; 10.68%; 10.13%; 9.63%; 9.36%; 8.97%; 6.25%; 5.43%; 4.08%. To manage productive forest land better, it is necessary to perfect policies and laws; strengthen the dissemination of policies and laws; encourage investment; complete cadastral work; intensify inspection, examination, and sanctioning of administrative violations of land; to upgrade the infrastructure system; to ensure enough human resources to manage forest land. The research method proposed in this paper could be used as a reference when assessing the impact of factors on the management of forest land for production in other areas of Vietnam and other countries around the world.

References

  1. Beygi, H., Banj Shafiei, A., Erfanian, M., Tayyebi, A., & Alijanpour, A. (2020). Armed conflict and land-use changes: Insights from Iraq-Iran war in Zagros Forests. Forest Policy and Economics, 118(9), 102246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102246
  2. Bicudo da Silva, R. F., Millington, J. D. A., Moran, E. F., Batistella, M., & Liu, J. (2020). Three decades of land-use and land-cover change in mountain regions of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Landscape and Urban Planning, 204(12), 103948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103948
  3. Bopp, C., Engler, A., Jara-Rojas, R., & Arriagada, R. (2020). Are forest plantation subsidies affecting land use change and off-farm income? A farm-level analysis of Chilean small forest landowners. Land Use Policy, 91(2), 104308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104308
  4. Bose, P., Larson, A. M., Lastarria-Cornhiel, S., Radel, C., Schmink, M., Schmook, B., & Vazquez-Garcia, V. (2017). Women's rights to land and communal forest tenure: A way forward for research and policy agenda in Latin America. Women's Studies International Forum, 65(11), 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2017.10.005
  5. Bui, T., M., N., Truong, T., D., Doan, T., H., Nguyen, T., T., H., Nguyen, T., D., Dao, T., & H. (2019). Factors affecting the willingness to invest forest development in Hoa Binh province. Journal of Forestry Science and Technology, 2, 158-167.
  6. Clement, F., & Amezaga, J. M. (2009). Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: Analyzing the gap between policy intentions and outcomes. Land Use Policy, 26(2), 458-470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.06.003
  7. Coomes, O. T., Takasaki, Y., & Rhemtulla, J. M. (2017). What fate for swidden agriculture under land constraint in tropical forests? Lessons from a long-term study in an Amazonian peasant community. Journal of Rural Studies, 54(8), 39-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.06.002
  8. Ferreira, P., van Soesbergen, A., Mulligan, M., Freitas, M., & Vale, M. M. (2019). Can forests buffer negative impacts of land-use and climate changes on water ecosystem services? The case of a Brazilian megalopolis. Science of the Total Environment, 685(10), 248-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.065
  9. Fuadah, L. L., Safitri, R. H., Yuliani, Y., & Arisman, A. (2020). Determinant factors' impact on managerial performance through management accounting systems in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 109-117. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO10.109
  10. Gilmour, D. (2016). Forty years of community-based forestry: A review of its extent and effectiveness. FAO Forestry Paper. Food and Agriculture Organization Eng No. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=XF2017000018, 176.
  11. Hair, Jr., J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
  12. Hautdidier, B., Banos, V., Deuffic, P., & Sergent, A. (2018). 'Leopards' under the pines: An account of continuity and change in the integration of forest land-uses in Landes de Gascogne, France. Land Use Policy, 79(12), 990-1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.026
  13. Hoang, L. K., & Nguyen, K. T. (2020). Fuzzy-AHP application in analyzing the factors affecting the quality of rural labor. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 715-721. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.715
  14. Hoang, T. C., & Nguyen, M. N. (2008). Analyzing research data with SPSS. Hanoi: Hong Duc Publishing House.
  15. Igbaria, M., Pavri, F. N., & Huff, S. L. (1989). Microcomputer application: An empirical look at usage. Information and Management, 16(4), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7206(89)90036-0
  16. Ingalls, M. L., Meyfroidt, P., To, P. X., Kenney-Lazar, M., & Epprecht, M. (2018). The transboundary displacement of deforestation under REDD+: Problematic intersections between the trade of forest-risk commodities and land grabbing in the Mekong region. Global Environmental Change, 50(9), 255-267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.04.003
  17. Ioki, K., Din, N. M., Ludwig, R., James, D., Hue, S. W., Johari, S. A., Awang, R. A., Anthony, R., & Phua, M. (2019). Supporting forest conservation through community-based land use planning and participatory GIS: Lessons from Crocker Range park, Malaysian Borneo. Journal for Nature Conservation, 52(12), 125740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2019.125740
  18. Koga, N., Shimoda, S., Shirato, Y., Kusaba, T., Shima, T., Niimi, H., Yamane, T., Wakabayashi, K., Niwa, K., Kohyama, K., Obara, H., Takata, Y., Kanda, T., Inoue, H., Ishizuka, S., Kaneko, S., Tsuruta, K., Hashimoto, S., & Atsumi, K. (2020). Assessing changes in soil carbon stocks after land use conversion from forest land to agricultural land in Japan. Geoderma, 377(11), 114487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114487
  19. Kulchittivej, C., Pornpundejwittaya, P., & Silpcharu, T. (2020). Credit management guidelines to strengthen Thai industrial sector. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(9), 351-362. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO9.351
  20. Kusters, K., & Brian, M. B. (2004). Forest products, livelihoods and conservation: Case studies of non-timber forest product systems. Bogor Residencey, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.
  21. Lasco, R. D., & Pulhin, J. M. (2006). Environmental impacts of community-based forest management in the Philippines. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 5(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2006.008682
  22. Lee, J. W., & Syah, A. M. (2018). Economic and environmental impacts of mass tourism on regional tourism destinations in Indonesia. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 5(3), 31-41. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2018.VOL5.NO3.31
  23. Li, T. M. (2002). Engaging simplifications: Community-based resource management, market processes and state agendas in upland Southeast Asia. World Development, 30(2), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00103-6
  24. Likert, R. A. (1932). A technique for measurements of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140(55), 7170-7191.
  25. Meli, P., Rey-Benayas, J. M., & Brancalion, P. H. S. (2019). Balancing land sharing and sparing approaches to promote forest and landscape restoration in agricultural landscapes: Land approaches for forest landscape restoration. Perspectives in Ecology and Conservation, 17(4), 201-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecon.2019.09.002
  26. Milheiras, S. G., & Mace, G. M. (2019). Assessing ecosystem service provision in a tropical region with high forest cover: Spatial overlap and the impact of land use change in Amapa, Brazil. Ecological Indicators, 99(4), 12-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.12.013
  27. Ministry of Natural Resources & environment (2018). Circular No. 27/2018/TT-BTNMT dated December 14, 2018 on land statistics, inventory, mapping of the current status of land use.
  28. Murray, C., & Clapham, D. (2020). Housing policies in Argentina under President Macri (2015-2019): A divided nation perpetuating path dependency. International Journal of Housing Policy, 20(4), 491-512. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2020.1775929
  29. Nath, T. K., Mohammed, J., & Makoto, I. (2016). Community-based forest management (CBFM) in Bangladesh. Netherlands: Springer.
  30. National Assembly. (2013). Land law 2013. Hanoi: National Political Publishing House.
  31. Navavongsathian, A., Vongchavalitkul, B., & Limsarun, T. (2020). Causal factors affecting mobile banking services acceptance by customers in Thailand. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics, and Business, 7(11), 421-428. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO11.421
  32. Olorunfemi, I. E., Komolafe, A. A., Fasinmirin, J. T., & Olufayo, A. A. (2019). Biomass carbon stocks of different land use management in the forest vegetative zone of Nigeria. Acta Oecologica, 95(2), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actao.2019.01.004
  33. People's Committee of Lai Chau Province. (2020). Report on the results of implementing land statistics and inventory in Lai Chau province.
  34. Pham, T. Q. (2020). Research and propose solutions for community-based forest land use and management in Hoa Binh province. Hanoi: Vietnam National University of Agriculture.
  35. Pham, T. Q., & Pham, P. N. (2014). Some solutions to improve the efficiency of forest land use and management allocated to communities in Vietnam. Hanoi: Vietnam Academy of Agriculture.
  36. Pham, P. N. (2015). Theoretical and practical issues implementing the community-based management model. Beijing: Institute of World Economy and Politics.
  37. Pichler, M., Manan, B., & Simone, G. (2020). The social and ecological costs of reforestation. Territorialization and industrialization of land use accompany forest transitions in Southeast Asia. Land Use Policy, 12, 105180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105180
  38. Potharla, S., Kaushik, B., & Durga Prasad, S. (2021). Real earnings management and persistence of firm value: Evidence from India. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 8(12), 323-336. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2021.VOL8.NO12.0323
  39. Pulhin, J. M., & Perlyn, M. P. (2003). Community-based forest management in the Philippines: Retrospect and prospects. In I. Makoto & H. Isozaki (Eds.), Policy and local reality in Southeast Asia, the Russian far east, and Japan (pp. 139-156). Netherlands: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-2554-5_9.
  40. Rantala, S., Bullock, R., Mbegu, M. A., & German, L. A. (2012). Community-based forest management: What scope for conservation and livelihood co-benefits? Experience from the East Usambara Mountains, Tanzania. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 31(11), 777-797. https://doi.org/10.1080/10549811.2012.725155
  41. Rosa, J. C. S., Geneletti, D., Morrison-Saunders, A., Sanchez, L. E., & Hughes, M. (2020). To what extent can mine rehabilitation restore recreational use of forest land? Learning from 50 years of practice in Southwest Australia. Land Use Policy, 90(1), 104290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104290
  42. Saint-Macary, C., Keil, A., Zeller, M., Heidhues, F., & Dung, P. T. M. (2010). Land titling policy and soil conservation in the northern uplands of Vietnam, forest transitions. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 617-627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.08.004
  43. Schurmann, A., Kleemann, J., Furst, C., & Teucher, M. (2020). Assessing the relationship between land tenure issues and land cover changes around the Arabuko Sokoke forest in Kenya. Land Use Policy, 95(6), 104625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104625
  44. Secretariat of the Party Central Committee (2017). Directive No. 13-CT/TW dated December 01, 2017 of the Party Central Secretariat on strengthening the Party's leadership in forest management, protection, and development.
  45. Sikor, T., & Ngoc, T. (2007). Exclusive versus inclusive devolution in forest management: Insights from forest land allocation in Vietnam's Central Highlands. Land Use Policy, 24(4), 644-653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.04.006
  46. Su, Z., Zhou, T., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Wang, J., Zhou, M., Zhang, J., He, Z., & Zhang, R. (2021). A preliminary study of the impacts of shelter forest on soil erosion in cultivated land: Evidence from integrated 137Cs and 210Pbex measurements. Soil and Tillage Research, 206(2), 104843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2020.104843
  47. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed). NY: Harper-Collins.
  48. Thuy, N., T., Lam, N., & T. (2020). Current status of allocated forest land use by ethnic minority households: A case study in Cho Don district, BAC Kan Province, Vietnam. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 18(8), 607-615.
  49. Toumbourou, T. (2020). Using a Delphi approach to identify the most efficacious interventions to improve Indonesia's forest and land governance. Land Use Policy, 99(12), 102768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.05.017
  50. Tuffour-Mills, D., Antwi-Agyei, P., & Addo-Fordjour, P. (2020). Trends and drivers of land cover changes in a tropical urban forest in Ghana. Trees, Forests and People, 2(12), 100040. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2020.100040
  51. Xie, H., He, Y., Zhang, N., & Lu, H. (2017). Spatiotemporal changes and fragmentation of forest land in Jiangxi Province, China. Journal of Forest Economics, 29(12), 4-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfe.2017.08.004
  52. Yang, X., Jin, X., Xiang, X., Fan, Y., Shan, W., & Zhou, Y. (2018). Reconstructing the spatial pattern of historical forest land in China in the past 300 years. Global and Planetary Change, 165(6), 173-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.03.015
  53. Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: An introductory analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.