IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Research article
erd

Forest Ecosystem Services and Agricultural Production ofCommunities in Protected Areas: A Case Study of Phu Kao Phu Phan Kham National Park, Thailand
WIPADA JANTA*
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
Email: j.wipada19@gmail.com

ADCHARAPORN PAGDEE
Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

SOMKID UTTARANAKORNHead of Phu Kao–Phu Phan Kham National Park
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Thailand
Received 15 December 2016

Accepted 8 June 2017(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Forest ecosystems provide goods and services that support our livelihoods. However,forestlands are often cleared for agriculture due to nutrient availability for crop growth. This
study examined forest ecosystem services and agricultural practices of three villages at Phu Kao– Phu Phan Kham National Park, northeastern Thailand. A survey on agricultural production
and socioeconomics was conducted in June 2016, together with GIS spatial analysis to examine
correlations between agricultural productivity and forest-to-farmland distances (FD) andvegetative cover (VC) surrounding farmlands within a 100m radius. We hypothesized thatfarmlands closer to the forests and/or surrounded by greater vegetative structure would receive
more benefits from forest ecosystem services than those farther away. In total, 100 household
representatives answered the questionnaire. Cassava was a major cash crop planted withapproximately 8.94 tons/ha. Production costs of cassava plantation (i.e., labor and fertilizer)
were estimated 24,67.95 Baht/ha, mainly from harvesting costs and chemical fertilizers. Forestto-farmland distances and VC did not result in significant yields (tons/ha). However, the total
production costs of cassava plantations closer to the forest (<1 km) were significantly smaller
than those farther away (mean difference = -7,053 Baht/ha, p = 0.007), while VC showed amarginal difference. Farmlands with less VC (<1 ha) resulted in greater total production costs
than those with larger VC (mean difference = 2,540.00 Baht/ha, p = 0.073). These findings
illustrate that adjacent forests provide ecosystem services to cassava production, at least to
some degree. Farmers incur smaller production costs, thereby receiving greater economic
returns when their farmlands were closer to the forest and surrounded by larger amounts ofvegetation.
Keywords forest ecosystem services, agricultural production, protected areas, Phu Kao – Phu
Phan Kham National Park, Thailand

INTRODUCTION
Forest ecosystems provide goods and services such as food, fuel, and other basic necessities of life that
support at least half of the world’s population (World Resource Institue, 2008). The Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2005) categorized ecosystem services into four types: supporting, provisioning,
cultural and regulating services. Supporting services include biodiversity, soil fertility, nutrient cyclingⒸ ISERD

132

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

and the provision of water, while pollination, natural pest control and water purification are examplesof regulating services and traditional ecological knowledge represents example of cultural benefits.
Consequently, forestlands are often cleared for agricultural use because of high nutrient availability,
thus making agriculture the main force of deforestation (Lawson, 2014). Reducing the amount of
deforestation caused by agriculture is not as simple as asking farmers to stop clearing the land,
although it is the cheapest option in the short run. Furthermore, household livelihoods are a higher
priority than forest protection. Several studies have shown the benefits of forests over agricultural
production (Olschewski et al., 2006; Ricketts, 2004), so farmers can see what has been gained in theconversion process, especially supporting and regulating services e.g., pollination, soil fertility and pest
control, in addition to direct provisioning services such as non-timber forest products and potential
reserves for agricultural expansion.
Instead of simply asking villagers to stop land encroachment and/or agricultural expansion, thisstudy showed the benefits of forest ecosystem services. It investigated farming practices and householdsocioeconomic conditions since these factors affect agricultural production. The study was conducted
at Phu Kao – Phu Phan Kham National Park (PKNP) in northeastern Thailand. The area attracted someattention because of community settlement inside the park, which is not allowed in protected areas.
However, this case was an exception since the villages claimed that they were established before thepark was designated. Land conflict between villagers and park authorities continued until the Cabinet
Solution in 1998 in which usufruct rights were granted to villagers who were able to prove existence
before park designation. Following the 1998 Cabinet Solution, approximately 1,600 ha of protected
lands were set aside for agricultural and residential use purposes, together with land use rules andregulations. Moreover, management authority was transferred from the Department of National Parks,
Wildlife, and Plants Conservation to local authorities, complicating law enforcement efforts. Ruleviolations, including land encroachments outside the permitted area, agricultural expansion andplantations of prohibited crops/trees (i.e., para-rubber), can be observed. The PKNP authority recorded
at least 21 lawsuits of land encroachments inside the park during 2015. Furthermore, the community
has expanded substantially, from small villages of seven to 10 households at the beginning to 528
households in 2015 (Office of Civil Registration, 2015).
OBJECTIVESThis study examined correlations between agricultural productivity, FD and VC surrounding the
farmlands. We hypothesized that farmlands closer to the forests and/or surrounded by greater VC
would receive more ecosystem benefits than those more isolated (Olschewski et al., 2006; Ricketts,
2004). Therefore, farmers should obtain greater yields and/or incur less costs.
METHODOLOGY
Study Area
The boundary of PKNP, Thailand’s 50th national park, crosses three provinces in northeast Thailand(Khon Kaen, Nong Bua Lamphu, and Udon Thani) covering approximately 32,200 ha. The park
consists of two main areas, including Phu Kao and Phu Phan Kham. This study took place at Phu Kao(PK), located between latitudes 16° 51’ - 17° 1’ N and longitudes 102° 24’- 102° 31’E in Nong Bua
Lamphu. Phu Kao consists of diverse landscapes, including sandstone mountains, undulating
topography, and a vast floodplain of Pong River, creating the Ubonrattana Reservior – the largest damin the northeast. The major vegetation is dry Dipterocarp forest, covering approximately 80% of PK,
followed by mixed deciduous forest and dry evergreen forest. Intermixed within the park are Phu Kao
National Forest Reserves, making forest access less restrictive when compared to the national park
Ⓒ ISERD

133

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

lands because they are managed by a different agency, the Royal Forest Department. Moreover,approximately 1,600 ha of park lands were set aside for community agricultural and residential use
purposes as part of the 1998 Cabinet Solution. These communities include Dongbak, Wangmon andChaimongkol village. Management authority over this designated area was transferred to local
administrative organizations of Nonsang District, Nong Bua Lamphu Province.
Data Collection on Agricultural Production and Household Socioeconomic Conditions
A questionnaire was used to collect data on agricultural production, household socioeconomic
conditions, and other relevant information e.g., forest use and villager adaptation to environmental andsocioeconomic change. The survey was semi-administered by household representatives (i.e., head of
the family, spouse and/or main labors) who were personally interviewed by the researchers. Theinterview was conducted in the following order: household socioeconomic information, agriculturalactivities and production, boundary locations of farmlands, crop yields, and production costs. The
village leaders were contacted prior to the actual visits, which occurred in June 2016, to inform them of
the study and seeking their permission to participate. In total 100 household representatives from all
three villages were selected randomly. In addition, personal interviews with the village leaders andonsite observations were performed for confirmation and clarification.
Spatial Data Analysis
In addition to surveyed data, FD and VC surrounding the farmlands were estimated using ArcGIS 10.1.
First, household representatives were asked to identify their farm location and boundaries using
GoogleEarth images. Midpoint coordinates for each of the identified farmlands were specified for
calculation of FD and VC surrounding the farmlands. Calculation of FD were performed using Ruler
Tool to measure a distance from each farmland midpoint to the nearest forest. Furthermore, calculationof VC was done using farmland coordinates and images downloaded from GoogleEarth. The
coordinate system: WGS1984 UTM Zone 48N was used as referenced data for farmland coordinatesand sizes of the actual areas before the dereferencing pointer adjusted the processed images to get
accurate coordinates. The farmland midpoint coordinates from Excel were imported into ArcGIS,
creating an entire data set of farmland coordinates. Afterwards, shapefiles were created to digitize VC
within a 100m radius before reclassification and specification of areas and values of cells. The laststage was to buffer each sampled area within a 100m radius using the Calculate Geometry tool tocompute size of VC until the set of farmland coordinates was completed.
Statistical Analysis
Data from the survey and spatial analysis were entered into SPSS version 20 for statistical analysis.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe household socioeconomic conditions and their agricultural
production activities. Pearson correlations were used to examine socioeconomic factors relating toagricultural production. Finally, independent t-tests were used to compare yields, farm inputs andproduction costs between farmlands with different FD and surrounding VC. Mean values i.e., 1,000 m
for FD and 10,000 m2 (1 ha) for VC, were used to classify the variables (i.e., yields and production
costs) into two groups.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Household’s Socioeconomic ConditionsⒸ ISERD

134

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

In total, 100 household representatives (36 from Wangmon, 30 from Chaimongkol, and 34 from
Dongbak), including village leaders, participated in the survey. Their socioeconomic conditions areshown in Table 1.
Table 1 Socioeconomic information of farmers participated in the study
Socioeconomic conditions
Wangmon(n=36)
GenderFemaleMaleMain occupation
FarmerMerchant
Government service
Hired labor
Household income (Baht/year)
Averaged size of agricultural lands (ha)% of respondents
Chaimongkol
Dongbak(n=30)(n=34)

Summed(n=100)

14
22

11
19

21
13

46
54

35
1
141,083
2.81

25
1
1
2
111,340
3.77

34
1
183,894
4.00

94
2
2
2
135,538
3.52

The majority of villagers (98%) earned most of their income from selling agricultural products,
essentially cassava; and a small number of them made additional income from selling non-timber forest
products (approximately 100 Baht/month). About 57% of participants reported growing rice. This
number is small compared to other agricultural-based communities in the northeast, which is nearly
100%. Perhaps this is due to topographic unsuitability for rain-fed rice cultivation, which usuallyoccurs in the lowlands, but the three villages are located on hilly terrain. All villagers indicatedgrowing rice for personal consumption which helped to reduce household spending. However, almost
three-fourths (71%) of the farmers faced rice shortage, so they needed to purchase extra amounts forhousehold consumption. The estimated amounts of rice purchased were 392.21 kg/household or
approximately 12,855 Baht/household per year.
Land Use and Agricultural Production
Two common cash crops were planted i.e., cassava and sugarcane for income generation. Sincesugarcane prices have dropped in recent years while production costs remain high, many farmers haveswitched to cassava. Only five per cent of the villagers reported planting sugarcane during 2014-2015
crop year, while 98% grew cassava. Rice is cultivated for household consumption rather than income
generation. Three farmers (one from each village) reported planting para-rubber trees even though thistree is prohibited to preserve natural forests in the park. High market demands, especially in the past 10
years when the government promoted para-rubber plantations in the northeast, gave villagers economic
incentives to plant this tree, despite rules and regulations against it. Although this incident is
considered illegal, park officers often compromise to avoid conflict by asking villagers not to expand
their plantations.
Average sized farmlands, about 3.52 ha, are mainly used for cash crop plantations i.e., cassava.
Average yields of cassava was 8.94 tons/ha, which is much lower than the average provincial yield(21.18 tons/ha) in 2015 (Office of Agricultural Economics, 2015). Total production costs were
estimated from explicit costs of labor used in each of the plantation stages, together with costs offertilizer application, including manure and chemical fertilizers. The average production costs were
24,676.95 Baht/ha. Harvesting accounted for the highest proportion of total production costs (53%),
followed by farm maintenance (34%), planting processes (8%) and land preparation (5%) (Table 2).
Farming is becoming more market-driven. Cash returns from agricultural activities are thought to beⒸ ISERD

135

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

more valuable than subsistence benefits. Therefore, farmers increase crop productivity in an attempt toserve increasing market demands by using more chemical fertilizers and relying on hired labor.
Subsequently, production becomes expensive with relatively smaller profits (Bowman and Zilberman,2013).
Table 2 Production costs of cassava plantation
Process of cassava production
Total costs of cassava production (Baht/ha)
1) Land preparation
2) Cassava planting
3) Farm maintenance3.1) Chemical fertilizer application
3.2) Manure application
3.3) Weeding4) Harvesting costs

Households samples (n = 94)
24,676.95
1,335.15 (5%)
1,853.52 (8%)
8,391.33 (34%)
5,884.59 (70%)
147.90 (2%)
2,358.84 (28%)
13,096.95 (53%)

Factors Affecting Farmer Agricultural Production
Farm production depends on both ecological and socioeconomic factors. Ecological conditions e.g.,
nutrient contents, soil pH and moisture, and amounts of rainfall, directly influence crop growth.
Nonetheless, quality of farmlands absolutely relies on farming practices, especially farm maintenanceand land conservation. In this study, total production costs, amounts and costs of chemical fertilizers
used in cassava plantations showed significant correlations with size of farmlands (r = 0.363, -0.247
and -0.241, p<0.05, respectively). All farmers reported using chemical fertilizers to help improve crop
productivity. The amount and cost of chemical fertilizers varied according to the size of farmlands,
which subsequently influenced the total production costs. The larger the planting areas, the smaller theamounts and costs of chemical fertilizers used per hectare. Size of agricultural lands also affected theamount of farm input since farmers can only provide so much labor, fertilizer, and other inputs tomaximize crop yields. Nonetheless, average yields did not show significant correlations with total costs,
amounts and costs of fertilizers and labor costs. Although farm input directly affected crop productivity,
ecological conditions, including climatic and soil factors, also played an important role in determining
productivity.
Farm Production Based on Forest-to-farmland Distance and Vegetative CoverThe analysis used to examine if FD influenced agricultural production illustrated that total costs infarm maintenance and total production costs (i.e., labor, manure and chemical fertilizers) of farmlands
located closer to the forest were significantly smaller than those farther away (Table 3). Costs ofchemical fertilizers showed a marginal difference; cassava plantations closer to the forest resulted inlower costs. Although average yields were not significantly different, they were smaller for cassava
plantations with smaller VC, while total production cost and total labor cost were marginally higher for
cassava plantations having smaller vegetative cover (Table 3).
To some extent, these findings imply positive contributions or services from the forest to cassava
plantations, including the influence of FD on total costs in farm maintenance, total production costs
and costs of chemical fertilizers used in planting cassava, and the impact of VC on total production
costs and labor costs. However, average yields did not reveal connections with FD and VC because
they do not solely depend on farm input, but also from climatic factors and soil conditions. History of
landuse, crop rotation and farm maintenance practices directly influence agricultural land conditions
and productivity. Longevity of land use, especially continuous use of chemical fertilizers, leads to adecrease in soil nutrients and higher erosion (FAO, 2016; Virto et al., 2015), which in turn, reducesⒸ ISERD

136

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

crop yields. Moreover, some studies reveal that VC can hinder crop growth since it could reduce
sunlight and other necessary growth factors, causing low productivity of crops (Yasmin et al., 2016;
Wang et al., 2012; Cerdan et al., 2012).
Table 3 Comparisons of agricultural production (t-tests) between farmlands with different
forest-to-farmland distances and vegetative coverGroupvariables

Forest-tofarm
Distances

Vegetative
coversTest Variablesxˉ ±SD

Mean
Differencet1) Costs of chemical fertilizer application (Baht/ha)
Zone 1 (0-1,000 m)
5,212±4,216-1,466.61 -1.726
Zone 2 (>1,000 m)
6,679±3,966
2) Total costs in farm maintenance (Baht/ha)
Zone 1 (0-1,000 m)
9,805±6,149-7,063-2.99
Zone 2 (>1,000 m)
16,868±14,379
3) Total production costs of cassava plantation (Baht/ha)
Zone 1 (0-1,000 m)
15,215±7,631-7,053-2.77
Zone 2 (>1,000 m)
22,269±15,115
1) Total production costs of cassava plantation (Baht/ha)
Zone A (0-10,000 m2)
19,273±16,411
2,540.00
0.898
Zone B (>10,000 m2)
16,733±9,489
2) Total labor costs (Baht/ha)
Zone A (0-10,000 m2)
13,712±15,998
3,616.77
1.323
Zone B (>10,000 m2)
10,095±9,332

t-testN

pvalue

51
43

0.088

51
43

0.004*

51
43

0.007*

49
45

0.073

49
45

0.092

Note: * significantly different p<0.05, underlined numbers represent marginal difference

CONCLUSION
There is a strong interdepency between forests and farmers, although it can be difficult to quantify. The
forest provides benefits and services that support farmer livelihoods, while its existence depends onfarming practices. Increasing demands for food and other types of agricultural products e.g., energy
crops, force farmers to expand their production, which in turn, leads to deforestation. Unfortunately,
authorities cannot simply ask farmers to stop agricultural practices just to halt deforestation. Therefore,
one way to motivate farmers not to expand their agricultural lands into nearby forests is to show how
the forests can contribute to their production. This study illustrates that FD and VC influence farm
production, at least to some extent. Farmlands close to the forest and/or surrounded by large patches ofvegetation benefit from the forest, resulting in lower costs of chemical fertilizers, total costs in farm
maintenance and total production costs. Finally, the protected forest in Phu Kao, Nong Bua Lamphu
Province is an example to reiterate that it helps provide ecosystem services that improve farmer’s
agricultural production. Typically, forest protection and agriculture are in opposition, but should beviewed as complementary. Therefore, effective forest protection is beneficial for agricultural
production rather than hindering it – a new paradigm to better understand their interconnectivity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Khon Kaen University research group and center: 1) Research Group on
Problem Soils in Northeast Thailand and 2) Research and Development Center for Integrated Water
Resources Management, for useful input on the study. Most importantly, this project would not be
possible without the collaboration and support from Phu Kao – Phu Phan Kham National Park and allcommunity leaders and villagers at Dongbak, Wangmon and Chaimongkon Village.
Ⓒ ISERD

137

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

REFERENCES
Bowman, S.M. and Zilberman, D. 2013. Economic factors affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology andSociety, 18 (1), 33. DOI.org/10.5751/ES-05574-180133
Cerdan, R.C., Rebolledo, C.M., Soto, G., Rapidel, B. and Sinclair, L.F. 2012. Local knowledge of impacts of tree
cover on ecosystem services in smallholder coffee production systems. Agricultural Systems, 110, 119-130.
Doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.03.014.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2016. Agriculture and soil biodiversity. [Online]. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/thematic-sitemap/theme/spi/soil-biodiversity/agriculture-and-soilbiodiversity/en. Access date: November 28, 2015.
Lawson, Sam. 2014. Consumer goods and deforestation, An analysis of the extent and nature of illegality inforest conversion for agriculture and timber plantations. Forest Trends Report Series Forest Trade andFinance [Online]. Available at: http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_4718.pdf. Access date:
October 29, 2016.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being, A framework for assessment.
Island Press: Washington, DC. [Online]. Available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org /documents/document.356.aspx.pdf. Access date: October 29, 2015.
Office of Civil Registration. 2015. Demographic records (in Thai). Non Sang District.
Office of Agricultural Economics. 2015. Agricultural production data, Cassava (in Thai) [Online]. Available at:
http://www.oae.go.th/download/prcai/DryCrop/amphoe/casava-amphoe58.pdf. Access date: December 1,
2016.
Olschewski, R., Tscharntke, T., Benítez, P.C., Schwarze, S. and Klein, A. 2006. Economic evaluation ofpollination services comparing coffee landscapes in Ecuador and Indonesia. Ecology and Society, 11 (1), 7.
URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art7/.
Ricketts, H. Taylor. 2004. Tropical forest fragments enhance pollinator activity in nearby coffee crops.
Conservation Biology, 18 (5), 1262-1271. Doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00227.x.
Virto, I., Imaz, J.M., Fernandez-Ugalde, O., Gartzia-Bengoetxea, N., Enrique, A. and Bescansa, P. 2015. Soil
degradation and soil quality in western Europe, Current situation and future perspectives. Sustainability, 7,313-365. Doi:10.3390/su7010313.
Wang, S., Fu, B.J., Gao, G.Y., Yao, X.L. and Zhou, J. 2012. Soil moisture and evapotranspiration of different
land cover types in the Loess Plateau, China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, Doi: 10.5194/hess-162883-2012.
World Resource Institute. 2008. Roots of resilience, Growing the wealth of the poor. Washington, DC: WRI.
Yasmin, A.R., Leuschner, C., Barus, H., Tjoa, A. and Herte, D. 2016. Cacao cultivation under diverse shade tree
cover allows high carbon storage and sequestration without yield losses. Plos one, 11 (2). DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0149949.

Ⓒ ISERD

138