Forests, Trees and Livelihoods

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tftl20

From subsistence to market-driven: the role of

non-timber forest products at community forests
in Northeast Thailand

Ployrada Phumee & Adcharaporn Pagdee

To cite this article: Ployrada Phumee & Adcharaporn Pagdee (2021) From subsistence to market-
driven: the role of non-timber forest products at community forests in Northeast Thailand, Forests,
Trees and Livelihoods, 30:3, 151-168, DOI: 10.1080/14728028.2021.1925975

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2021.1925975

Published online: 12 May 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 87

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tftl20
FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOODS
2021, VOL. 30, NO. 3, 151–168
https://doi.org/10.1080/14728028.2021.1925975

From subsistence to market-driven: the role of non-timber

forest products at community forests in Northeast Thailand
Ployrada Phumee and Adcharaporn Pagdee
Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Non-timber forest products (NTFPs) are essential provisions for many Non-timber forest products;
households, yet mobility and socioeconomic development are chan­ community forests; forest
ging forest connections for those who live in rural areas. Despite being ecosystem services; Thailand
far away, some villagers remain attached to their childhood residences,
especially for food consumption, leading to an increased demand for
NTFPs. This study examined rural livelihoods and use of NTFPs, includ­
ing economic value, trade-offs, and responses to market demands.
A semi-structured questionnaire was administered to 199 individuals
at three villages in Udon Thani, northeast Thailand during 2017. In
addition, 46 forest users from outside the villages participated in the
study. Subjects reported eight groups of NTFPs harvested, accounting
for nearly 10% of average household annual income. Although most
local villagers harvested NTFPs for household consumption, 21% did
so for income generation. Moreover, 55% of forest users transported
NTFPs elsewhere, either by direct trading or to their children and/or
relatives living in other cities. Increased market demand pressure
villagers to change their selling tactics. Instead of gathering NTFPs
directly from the forests, some individuals purchased and re-sold them
to local traders for higher prices. Local economies are changing from
subsistence to market-driven and cash-dependent livelihoods.

1. Introduction
Forest ecosystems provide many goods and services that support rural livelihoods in
Thailand. Subsistence depends on forest resources, especially non-timber forest products
(NTFPs) for food, medicine, fiber, and fuelwood (Wimonlsakcharoen et al. 2020). However,
this reliance is changing due to socioeconomic development, urbanization, and poverty
reduction (Xu et al. 2015; Le and Nguyen 2020; Duong et al. 2021). People, specifically
youth and those living in cities, are distancing themselves from the forests. Villagers, even in
remote areas, tend to rely on market goods, including those derived from NTFPs to pay for
living expenses, rather than using them to satisfy basic life necessities. Many people
rationalize their behavior as a necessary trade-off for the “good” life. However, such lifestyle
choices come at great expense to the environment (Balatsky et al. 2015).
Since 2000, Southeast Asia (i.e. Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam) has
experienced a higher rate of forest loss compared to other regions (Achard et al. 2014;
Margono et al. 2014; Richards and Friess 2016), mainly due to lowland cultivation (Zeng
et al. 2018). In Thailand, the actual causes of deforestation are debatable (Pungprasert 1989;

CONTACT Adcharaporn Pagdee adcpag@kku.ac.th

© 2021 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
152 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

Delang 2002; Leblond 2014). Although logging concessions are no longer responsible for
deforestation, illegal timber harvests are the most frequent lawsuit recorded by the Royal
Forestry Department ([RFD] Royal Forest Department (2014)), followed by land encroach­
ment, and hunting and gathering of NTFPs. Non-timber forest products generate revenue
due to market demands (e.g. mushrooms, wild vegetable, nuts and insects), influencing
villagers to harvest and sell more forest products (Jarernsuk et al. 2015; Sharmal et al. 2015).
Intensive collection of NTFPs accelerates forest degradation (Muller et al. 2014). Despite
implementing several management approaches, such as protected areas, reforestation and
sustainable practices, deforestation and forest degradation continue.
Community forest management – a form of self-governance, is an alternative to state
forestry, especially in areas where government intervention may not function effectively
(Porter–Bolland et al. 2011). Community forests (CFs) provide ecosystem goods and
services that support local livelihoods. Simultaneously, local people in collaboration with
outside agencies (e.g. forest departments, university researchers, governments and non-
governmental organizations) protect and manage CFs through integration of norms, tradi­
tions, customary rules, and legal enforcement. Community forests offer protection for
biodiversity and community livelihoods ([FAO] Food and Agricultural Organization of
the United Nations 2016).
Yet, this forest-people relationship is changing due to socioeconomic dynamics, rural
transformation, and demographic mobility (Ashraf et al. 2017). Villagers often move and/or
commute to big cities for higher wages (Rigg et al. 2012; Lanui et al. 2016) so they have less
time to collect NTFPs. However, they are still attached to their local livelihoods, especially
for food consumption – a cultural ecosystem service that strengthens forest-people bonds.
This situation promotes market demands for NTFPs. Previously, villagers harvested NTFPs
mainly for household use, but now do so to satisfy market demands. Trade of NTFPs among
the locals extends toward large-scale commercialization for serving the needs of individuals
farther away. Subsistence is transforming into a market-dependent lifestyle. As a result,
many people consider cash payments to be more valuable than forest resources, the essence
of life and culture in (rural) Thailand.
In this study, we examined forest-people dynamics, specifically NTFPs and benefits
gained by villagers. We also looked at forest access by outsiders, people who search for
natural resources, leading to some conflicts among forest users. Current forest use practices
and villager responses were investigated to understand increased market demands of NTFPs
at three villages in Udon Thani province, northeast Thailand. Since 2011, each of these
villages manages its CFs under RFD requirements. We posited that market demands will
drive forest users to expand their harvests, but the RFD requirements and community
norms should regulate forest access. The following sections review CF management in
Thailand and forest-people interconnections. Subsequently, we describe the study sites,
methodology, results, discussion, and conclusions.

2. Community forests in Thailand: forest-people interconnections

Community forests are an essential part of rural settlements in Thailand because they
function as sources of food, fuelwood, medicine and other basic necessities (Jarernsuk
et al. 2015; Wimonlsakcharoen et al. 2020). Community forests also serve as a grazing
area, spiritual sanctuary, and an additional source of household income (Sharmal et al.
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 153

2015; Mahonya et al. 2019; Le and Nguyen 2020; Duong et al. 2021). Over 10,000 CFs are
present throughout Thailand ([RFD] Royal Forest Department 2021a). Success of CF
management in protecting local forest resources and maintaining community livelihoods
has been recognized since the 1970s. Meanwhile, top-down management practices failed to
protect the country’s forests, resulting in massive deforestation, especially during the mid-
1970s (2019). These opposing strategies brought CF management into national forest
management plans during the early 1980s (Porter–Bolland et al. 2011).
Although CFs have changed over time, they continue to reflect many connections
between resources and people on local and societal levels. Starting from customary-based
management of local forests to encourage subsistence, CFs moved toward collaborative and
scientific-based management, aiming to fulfill the government’s obligation to protect forest
resources. Now they support market-oriented conservation, which sets goals for forest
protection, sustainable livelihoods, and other environmental issues, such as climate change
(Dressler and Roth 2011; [FAO] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
2016; RECOFTC and AWG-SF 2017).
In collaboration with the Provincial Offices for Natural Resources and Environment,
university researchers, sub-district administration organizations (SAOs) and non-
governmental organizations (NGOs), the RFD initiated several community-based forest
management programs, including food and economic tree plantation, reforestation, forest
patrol and fire extinguishment, and forest-guard volunteer groups, in an attempt to build
local capacity for forest protection. When villagers were dependent on forest resources for
subsistence, the RFD promoted customary-based CFs and/or public forestlands to serve as
food banks and sources of fuelwood. Later, small landowners, including economic tree
plantations, especially eucalyptus growers, have flourished as another form of CF manage­
ment because villagers can sell wood products for income generation ([FAO] Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2016). A variety of economic trees, for
example, teak (Tectona grandis), Burmese padauk (Pterocarpus macrocarpus), and Yang-na
(Dipterocarpus alatus) were planted, especially after governmental regulations allowed
commercial logging of privately owned trees. The RFD also supported local communities
to develop formal rules and regulations to control forest access, especially as the number of
forest users grew and conflicts between them, became evident.
A Community Forest Bill drafted by the RFD in 1991 to formalize community manage­
ment practices resulted in numerous struggles, such as community rights, responsibility
over forestlands, and benefit distribution. Although the Bill was approved by the Senate in
2005 and the Community Forest Act was declared in a royal gazette in 2019, it did not
resolve previous issues. For example, a communal land title was brought to the Cabinet in
2018 to grant community rights over forestlands, but it was sidetracked by other political
issues, which led to inconclusive decision-making (Wittayapak and Baird 2018).
Although high-level political bodies and top administrations continue to discuss com­
munity rights and responsibilities, on the ground socioeconomic development has trans­
formed rural communities into so-called “urbanized” livelihoods. Despite specific
differences of what is occurring in rural areas and how they are changing, some common­
alities can be observed country-wide, or at least in northeast Thailand. These include
delocalization of residences, disembodying of households, and dissociation of the village-
community, especially for aging farmers and the generational drift toward non-farm work
(Rigg et al. 2012). This community process alters forest-people connections for individuals
154 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

who live in villages and for those who do not. We will explore what occurred at three villages
in Udon Thani, a major province in northeast Thailand.

3. Study sites
From the early 1980s to 2019, the RFD registered 11,008 CFs, covering about 8,869 km2
(RFD 2021a) or 1.73% of the country’s land mass, accounting for 5.41% of total forested
areas (RFD 2021b). These CFs are managed by local villagers based on RFD requirements
for CF management, including clear forest demarcation, development of formal rules and
regulations, committee, and forest guards. Although the Community Forest Act is in effect,
villager’s access to forestland is based on granted usufruct rights with some restrictions
imposed upon certain forest products, that is, trees and wildlife, while NTFPs remain open-
access to everyone, either local villagers or outsiders.
This study explored three villages, namely Non Pho (NP), Dong Bang (DB) and Noi Lam
Phu (NL) in Udon Thani (Figure 1). In 2000, the RFD launched a community-based forest
management program, aiming to engage local communities in resource protection through­
out the country. Under the program, certain portions of national forest reserves adjacent to
villages were designated as CFs where local access and management responsibility – usu­
fruct rights, were granted. The three selected villages were part of this program and its CFs
(i.e. NPCF, DBCF and NLCF) had been established on the RFD’s CF List since 2011. This
official registration indicated community’s usufruct rights and management responsibilities
over the forestlands where boundaries were clearly defined, together with establishment of
a CF management committee, a group of forest guards, and enforcement of written rules
and regulations1 to control forest access, in addition to social norms and customary rules
(see also supplemental file).
The CFs were located in Phu Phan Noi Mountain Range, about 50 km from Udon Thani
city. The major natural vegetation type of all three CFs is dry Dipterocarp forest, dominated
by Shorea roxburghii, S. siamensis, Gluta usitata and G. obovata, with an open-like canopy
and dense undergrowth, especially rich in Vietnamosasa pusilla and Zingiberaceae species.
Forest fires occur at this location almost every year, especially during the dry season (from
February to April). NPCF (2.40 km2) is located at a relatively high elevation (250–465 m)
with rough terrain and steep mountain ridges far from the villages (average 10 km). However,
it provided suitable locations for free-range livestock because it was difficult for the cattle to
escape while grazing. Meanwhile, NLCF (3.68 km2) and DBCF (1.68 km2) are located in the
1
Written rules and regulations in the three studied CFs consist of 1) rules and regulations and 2) penalties and fines for
violators as follows:
1. Don’t log in the CF area. Violators will be fined THB 500 up to THB 5,000.
2. Don’t start a fire or burn the forest. Violators will be fined THB 1,000 up to THB 5,000.
3. Don’t hunt wildlife in the CF area. Violators will be fined THB 500 up to THB 5,000.
4. Don’t encroach, slash and burn trees in the forest. Violators will be fined THB 10,000 up to THB 50,000.
5. Don’t sabotage all the assets e.g. boundary poles and billboards in the CF. Violators will be fined THB 5,000 up to THB
10,000.
6. Don’t raise livestock in the CF.
Rules and regulations are enforced by the CF management committee with village forest guards:
1. Forest guards are responsible for patrolling with participation from all villagers.
2. All the fines from rule violators will be collected and put into a village fund.
3. If rule violators deny of any violating actions and fine payment, they will be proceeded to higher relevant authorities,
for example, forestry officials and police officers, for further prosecution.
Note: The minimum amount of fine: THB 500 is approximately 3% of a household monthly income.
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 155

Figure 1. Study sites in Udon Thani province, northeast Thailand.

foothills, adjacent to the farmlands, allowing easy-access NTFP collection. Moreover, there
was a local market about 20 km from the villages called Huay Doue that is a popular location
for tourists, city residents, and some villagers from the study areas to purchase NTFPs.
156 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

4. Data collection and analysis

This study classified forest users into two groups: 1) local villagers and 2) nonlocals/
outsiders. A minimum sample size for the group of local villagers was determined based
on Krejcie and Morgan (1970; N = 410 households from all three villages, at a 95%
confidence level). The number of samples in each village was proportionate to the number
of households. For outsiders, we targeted a minimum of 30 people since it was difficult to
intercept them and we were unsure if they would talk with us.
For local villagers, households were selected at random, but to qualify for the study, they
had to be familiar with CFs and agree to participate. One household representative, usually
head of the household or his/her spouse, was asked questions using a semi-structured
questionnaire. It addressed key sections on NTFP harvesting (e.g. types and amounts of
products, frequency, product prices, and trading pathways); forest accessibility (e.g. pur­
poses, commuting distance, and transportation); and household socioeconomics (e.g.
income, labor force, and household spending). The same questionnaire was administered
to outsiders. As it turned out, we were able to interview only 20 outsiders. Subsequently, we
asked local villagers if they knew any regular harvesters from outside the region and/or had
contact with them. Using this snowball procedure, we were able to obtain information from
26 other individuals about their forest access and NTFP harvesting practices.2 Furthermore,
we interviewed village leaders and CF management committee members to cross-check
their community roles in forest protection, as well as adaptation to socioeconomic changes,
especially increased market demands for NTFPs.
The survey and interviews were conducted from June to November, 2017, the peak
season for harvesting NTFPs. On site observations and weight measurements were taken to
validate and standardize the price and amounts of NTFPs reported by villagers. Descriptive
statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 19 Statistics, NY, as well as economic valuation of
harvested NTFPs using a market price method. Gross value was calculated based on product
quantity (Qi in kg) and price at the village market (Pi in Thai Baht) for the NTFPs harvested
by each household. Summed and averaged gross values were computed to show direct
benefits derived by local villagers and outsiders.

5. Results
5.1 Household socioeconomics and forest-community livelihoods
In total, 199 local villagers participated in a questionnaire interview. Figures 2 and Figure 3
depict household socioeconomics of the three studied villages. Most of local people were
farmers (58%) or daily laborers (31%). Approximately, 35% of the villagers had a secondary
occupation, especially daily-wage workers and NTFP sellers. Nearly 80% of them received
an elementary school education, but only 2% had any training beyond a high school
diploma. About 69% of the residents had 1–4 members in their family and 52% of them
reported that 3–4 of them were household laborers. Meanwhile, 66% of local villagers were
between 36 and 60 years old, 27% were over 60 years old and 7% were between 19 and

2
We reached 26 additional outsiders through telephone calls. However, it was difficult to obtain a complete set of
quantitative data, especially amounts of NTFPs harvested, frequency of CF access and household socioeconomics. For
that reason, this group of individuals was excluded from economic valuation of NTFPs.
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 157

Figure 2. Household socioeconomics of local villagers (n = 199) and outsiders (n = 20). Notes: 1. The inner
pies depict data of local villagers, while the outer pies illustrate the outsiders. And for each line of values,
the first value represents the number of respondents in the category and the second number is the
percentage of respondents in that category. 2. Data analysis for the group of outsiders included only 20
samples whom we had a face-to-face interview with. The group of 26 outsiders from the snowball
referral, which we reached basically through telephone calls, provided inconsistent data so were
excluded from the analysis.

35 years old. The majority of local households (67%) had monthly earnings between US$
350–700 and nearly 90% had outstanding debts, mainly from farm investments, childhood
education expenses, house and/or car mortgage, respectively.
Household socioeconomic data of outsiders revealed a similar picture, including
agriculture-based occupations with livestock grazing, daily-wage labor, and selling
NTFP as a secondary job (Figure 2). The majority of outsiders lived in nearby villages.
Some of them lived previously in one of the study sites, while others were relatives and/or
friends of local villagers. For both groups, rice cultivation was a primary activity since its
consumption is an important part of Thai culture. However, sugarcane and cassava were
planted mainly for income generation. In addition to cultivation, livestock grazing,
158 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

Figure 3. Household income classes and source of household debt. Notes: 1. For each line of values in pie
charts, the first value represents the number of respondents in the category and the second number is
the percentage of respondents in that category. 2. Data analysis for the group of outsiders included only
20 samples whom we face-to-face interviewed. The group of 26 outsiders from the snowball referral,
which we reached basically through telephone calls, provided inconsistent data so were excluded from
the analysis.

especially water buffaloes and cows, was typical among farmers. Livestock complements
rice cultivation because manure from the farm animals is an important source of fertilizer.
Moreover, livestock is a type of family savings plan since farmers can liquidate them, as
needed.
Slowly, livestock is being replaced by farm machinery. We only observed traditional,
free-range livestock grazing practiced by a few outsiders (n = 6). A small herd of water
buffaloes were freed inside the CF during the rainy season, especially at NPCF which is
located in rough terrain with steep mountain ridges, making it difficult for the animals to
escape. Large numbers of farmers once practiced traditional, free-range grazing before
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 159

national forest reserves or CFs were established. This number has decreased significantly
due to restrictions on forest access and increased reliance on machinery and equipment.

5.2 Access to the forest and use of NTFPs

Access to CFs for NTFP collection is part of rural livelihoods in each of the three villages.
Some people visited forests intentionally to gather seasonal NTFPs, but others did so
casually since CFs were nearby their farmland. About 61% of the local villagers (122 out
of the 199 interviewed local villagers) reported visiting CFs. Villagers who did not access
CFs mentioned several key factors: aging, health, and time limitations especially among
villagers with permanent jobs outside their village. Of those accessing CFs, they did so for
NTFP collection. Forest guards visited the CF for patrol duties. On occasion, forest guards
collected some NTFPs, but they were excluded from analysis.
It was common for local villagers to access the CF closest to their village and/or farmland,
within a 5 km distance, using motorized or non-motorized forms or transportation. Most of
the outsiders (~90%) traveled greater distances to CFs; some from 100 km away using
motorcycles, bicycles, or pickup trucks (Figure 4). The RFD intended to regulate CF access
to forest users and their usufruct rights based on location of residency. Local villagers from
NP could enter NPCF, and the same applied to other villages and their CFs. However, this
idea worked better in theory than practice. Non Pho village is located closer to another CF,
namely Kut Mak Fai: KMFCF (~4 km from NP), so NP villagers preferred to visit KMFCF
rather than their own CF (~10 km away). A paved road leading to a forest temple: Wat-Pah
(Dhammyuttika) provided easy access to KMFCF. Moreover, local villagers could travel to
other CFs nearby, thus increasing their chances of finding more of NTFPs. In contrast,
access to NPCF is more difficult due to mountainous terrain and steep slopes. Yet, “out­
siders” who lived nearby said it was convenient. Its location and terrain were suitable for
free-range livestock.
Community forests provide numerous NTFPs that are available year-round, and some
unique products during each season (Figure 5). Food delicacies among villagers include
young shoots of “Pak Wan” – sweet leaf vegetable (Melientha suavis) that emerges in the dry
season at the same time as queen broods and eggs of Oecophylla smaragdina – green tree ant
or “Mod Daeng” (in Thai). Rainy season is the peak time for harvesting many varieties of
mushrooms, bamboo shoots, and wild vegetables. During certain seasons, local villagers
access CFs for NTFP collection on a daily basis, but on average, it is about 27–50 times
per year. Meanwhile, half of the outsider group accessed the CFs more than 50 times
per year.
Local villagers harvested NTFPs for two main purposes: household consumption (79%)
and income generation (21%). The same applied to outsiders, but with opposite priorities:
income generation (63%) and household consumption (37%). We identified eight types of
NTFPs. The largest group, as measured by numbers of NTFPs, was food products that
consisted of wild vegetables, bamboo shoots, mushrooms, animals, and miscellaneous.
Mushrooms were the most popular item, harvested by everyone, followed by wild vegeta­
bles, bamboo shoots, animals and animal products.
Tables 1 and 2 summarize the amounts and gross economic values of NTFPs harvested
by local villagers and outsiders. Relatively speaking, higher amounts of NTFPs also obtained
higher market prices, for example, mushrooms, bamboo shoots, animals and animal
160 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

Figure 4. Traveling distance, types of access and vehicles used to access the CFs. Note: 1. For each line of
values in pie charts, the first value represents the number of respondents in the category and the second
number is the percentage of respondents in that category.

products. Moreover, outsiders tended to gather larger quantities of all types of forest
products, especially those with high market demand. In 2017, we estimated about 136 kg/
household of food products and medicinal plants by local villagers and a total of 183 kg/
household among outsiders. Bamboo shoots, one of the most important forest food
products, represented the largest amount of NTFPs among local villagers (73 kg/
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 161

Figure 5. Harvesting seasons and key non-timber forest products.

household). Although they were the second largest quantity among outsiders, the amount of
bamboo shoots was still higher (86 kg/household) than local villagers. Mushrooms obtained
the largest amount of NTFPs among outsiders (89 kg/household) and again were higher
than the amount collected by local villagers (55 kg/household). The same tendency applied
to wild vegetables, but not for bamboo stems, wood for charcoal making, and medicinal
plants. Perhaps outsiders did not gather these products because they were heavier, had
lower monetary value, more difficult to transport, and were available on their farmland.
Local villagers and outsiders who harvested NTFPs for household consumption collected
the smallest amounts, while the largest amounts went to those harvested products for
income generation. Some local villagers (n = 24) sold portions of NTFPs to full-time sellers
and villagers who wanted food products for their children, relatives and/or friends living
elsewhere. These so-called “occasional” sellers supported a trading loop or market chain of
NTFPs. Previously, full-time sellers gathered NTFPs by themselves, but now they purchase
items from occasional sellers, instead. This strategy allowed full-time sellers to spend more
time at the market. Subsequently, the group of occasional sellers obtained high profits,
incentivizing them to sell more, not less. Due to rural community transformation, larger
numbers of villagers worked outside agriculture and/or in other areas, driving higher
market demands for NTFPs since they have less time for harvesting.
Economic values reflect the importance of NTFPs and CFs to households and commu­
nities at large. This study also shows how much money each household can save by not
purchasing food products. It is an essential benefit from CFs, one that supports margin­
alized households and rural communities with small cash payments. Mushrooms, bamboo
shoots, and animals/products obtained high economic values due to increased market
demand. During the early harvest season, 1 kg of Pak Wan, queen broods, ant eggs, and
some specific mushrooms could yield up to 300 Baht (~ US$ 9.18), equivalent to a national
daily wage. Gross economic values of NTFPs harvested for income generation, either on
162 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

a casual or full-time basis, depicted cash benefits that each household earned yearly (Table
2). Overall, NTFP benefits accounted for nearly 10% of annual household income for local
villagers. A rough estimate, calculated from the total number of households in the three
villages (410 households in 2017) and averaged economic value across all types of NTFPs,
showed that CFs contributed at least US$ 66,373 to local household economies each year.

Figure 6. Pathways of NTFPs by harvester groups and use purposes.

(Table 1), resulting, in fact, in a large outflow of forest resources. For example, NTFPs were
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 163

Table 1. Amounts of NTFPs harvested from the community forests.

Items Local villagers Outsiders
(amounts in 2017) (n1) (n2)a
(1) Amounts (kg/household) by types of NTFPs
1.1) Wild vegetables (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 4 8
1.2) Bamboo shoot (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 73 86
1.3) Mushrooms (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 55 89
1.4) Animals and products e.g. ant eggs, lizards, insects and birds (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 4 NA
1.5) Medicinal plants (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) <1 NA
1.6) Bamboo stems (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 1 NA
1.7) Fuelwood (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 3 2
1.8) Wood for charcoal making (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 2 NA
(1) Amounts (kg/household) by consumption purposes
2.1) Food and medicinal plants (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 136 183
2.2) Wood and fuel (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 6 2
(1) Amounts (kg/household) by harvesting purposes
3.1) Household consumption (n1 = 96, n2 = 8) 95 56
3.2) Income generation: casual basis (n1 = 24, n2 = 0) 302 NA
3.3) Income generation: full-time basis (n1 = 2, n2 = 12) 472 270
(1) Amounts (kg/household) of NTFPs across all classification 142b 184
(1) Total amounts (kg) of NTFPs harvested within the sampled groups 17,368 3,688
Note: a Data analysis for the group of outsiders included only 20 samples who we had a face-to-face interview. The group of
26 outsiders from snowball referrals where we basically reached via telephone calls provided inconsistent data, so were
excluded from the economic valuation of NTFPs.
b
Used the average amount of NTFPs, we projected a grand total amount of 35,783 kg of NTFPs harvested by local villagers in
the three studied villages. This quantity reflects minimum benefits from NTFPs and the CFs contributing to local household
economies. Note: a total number of households in the three villages was 410 in 2017 and approximately 61% of the
households reported of harvesting NTFPs i.e. 122 households out of the 199 local villagers who participated in the
questionnaire survey.

transported up to 100 km from their source, changing the meaning of small-scale, local
consumption.
We identified two groups of outsiders: individuals who harvested NTFPs for household
consumption and those for income generation. Results from the first group showed they
were similar to local villagers. Some actually came from a village closer to the CF than the
distance from a local village to its CF – the case of NPCF. The latter only represents a group
of full-time sellers, some of which harvested NTFPs in greater amounts. Some outsiders
contacted and asked local villagers to provide them NTFPs before arriving in a village.
During the mushroom harvesting season (June–October), at least one outsider bought
about 6–8 kg of mushrooms each day (one outsider could export at least 918 kg of mush­
rooms per year). Some might end up at a local market such as Huay Doue where local
villagers bought them for personal consumption.

6. Discussion and conclusions

Community forests are sanctuaries for biodiversity. They support rural livelihoods and
transform domestic economies throughout the world (Jarernsuk et al. 2015; Sharmal et al.
2015; [FAO] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2016; Le and
Nguyen 2020; Wimonlsakcharoen et al. 2020; Duong et al. 2021). In this study, we focused
on forest-people connections in northeast Thailand through collection of NTFPs, the
essential ecosystem service from CFs that creates a unique food consumption culture for
local villagers.
164 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

Table 2. Gross economic values of NTFPs harvested from the community forests.
Items Local villagers Outsiders
(gross economic value in 2017)a (n1) (n2)b
(1) Gross economic value (US$/household) by types of NTFPs
1.1) Wild vegetables (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 12 31
1.2) Bamboo shoot (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 52 53
1.3) Mushrooms (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 176 522
1.4) Animals and products e.g. ant eggs, lizards, insects and birds (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 23 NA
1.5) Medicinal plants (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) <1 NA
1.6) Bamboo stems (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 1 NA
1.7) Fuelwood (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) <1 <1
1.8) Wood for charcoal making (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 1 NA
(1) Gross economic value (US$/household) by use purposes
2.1) Food and medicinal plants (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 262 606
2.2) Wood and fuel (n1 = 122, n2 = 20) 2 <1
(1) Gross economic value (US$/household) by harvesting purposes
3.1) Household consumption (n1 = 96, n2 = 8) 162 64
3.2) Income generation: casual basis (n1 = 24, n2 = 0) 548 NA
3.3) Income generation: full-time basis (n1 = 2, n2 = 12) 1,766 968
(1) Gross value (US$/household) across all classification 264 c 606
(1) Total gross value within the sampled groups (US$) 32,215 12,128
Note: a The estimate was based on 2017 harvests. Exchange rate US$ 1 = THB 32.67 (18/12/17)
b
Data analysis for the group of outsiders included only 20 samples who we had a face-to-face interview. The group of 26
outsiders from a snowball referral, which we reached basically via telephone calls, provided inconsistent data, so were
excluded from the economic valuation of NTFPs.
c
We projected a grand total gross economic value of NTFPs harvested by local villagers in the three villages at least US
$66,373 in 2017. This value reflects minimal benefits that the CFs have contributed to local household economies of the
three villages each year. Note: a total number of households in the three villages was 410 in 2017 and approximately 61%
of the households reported of harvesting NTFPs i.e. 122 households out of the 199 local villagers who participated in the
questionnaire survey.

6.1 Rural transformation: driving toward a better life

The three studied villages depict typical rural communities in northeast Thailand since
agriculture is ingrained deeply in community livelihoods. Villagers often refer to themselves
as “kon baan nok” – people living outside the city limits, and/or “thai baan” – rural citizens,
because they live in remote areas. Farming is the default occupation, even when the main
source of income has shifted to non-agricultural jobs and younger family members express
less interest in carrying on family traditions (Rigg et al. 2012). Moreover, parents with an
elementary school education encouraged their children to pursue higher education as a way
to escape poverty and hardship found in rural areas.
Although education is a key driver and index of socioeconomic status that helps people
broaden their horizons, it also has some drawbacks. Childhood education expenses are one
of the most important sources of household debt. The cruel irony of “selling water buffaloes
to send water buffaloes 3 to school” meant that farmers had to sacrifice greatly to give their
children hope for a better life, beyond agriculture. Moreover, education takes young people
away from their hometowns in search of higher-paying jobs in larger cities, exacerbating the
farm-labor crisis (Rigg et al. 2012; Srisompun and Isvilanonda 2012; Phromma et al. 2019).
Money is used to hire laborers, rent tractors, and invest in heavy machinery. Srisompun and
Isvilanonda (2012) reported that cost of rice production in Thailand increased sharply

3
Since water buffaloes move slowly, work hard in the field and are subservient to their masters, they symbolize no-brain or
labor workers in Thai society. In other words, farmer’s children were referred to as water buffaloes in a sense that they were
slow and not that smart, just like water buffaloes.
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 165

(~86%) from those in previous decades, in relation with the increased use of farm machin­
ery and chemical fertilizers, responsible for most of farmers’ debt. Meager farm earnings are
barely enough to support the family and to pay off existing mortgages, thus making farmers
to rid debt by farming more, not less. Other farmers quit farming altogether. Hence, poverty
perpetuates itself in this manner.

6.2 From local subsistence to market-driven: the shifting role of NTFPs in community
livelihoods
Collection of NTFPs is a well-recognized use of CFs worldwide, albeit for different pur­
poses, for example, household consumption, income generation, and recreation. These use
characteristics will depend largely on community socioeconomic status. In developed
countries such as Europe, Canada and the U.S., NTFP harvest is mostly for recreation
and personal consumption (Cordell and Chamberlain 2004), instead of income generation,
in contrast to subsistence in less developed countries (Jarernsuk et al. 2015; [FAO] Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations 2016; Mahonya et al. 2019; Le and Nguyen
2020; Wimonlsakcharoen et al. 2020).
The importance of NTFPs for rural livelihoods, especially for food consumption, ensures
harvest. Agriculture and rural community settings allow villagers to develop close connec­
tions with the land and surrounding forests. Foraging for food, fuelwood, and other NTFPs
during or after farming is part of rural lifestyles. Yet, forest-food consumption extends
beyond rural residents since many villagers have relocated to larger cities, country-wide.
Food from CFs, for example, mushrooms, ant eggs, and wild vegetables, are delicacies.
Although many villagers moved elsewhere, including large cities, they crave local food.
Comfort food creates a higher demand for NTFPs, thus inflating prices. Harvesting that
once focused on household subsistence, local consumption and small-scale trading, has
shifted toward income generation and extensive consumption by individuals and family
members who live farther away.
Increased demands for NFTPs accelerate the outflow, motivating local villagers to
harvest more products. Since forest productivity cannot keep up with the pace, local
villagers tend to adjust their harvest and consumption patterns, some of which include
distancing from forests and people. Households with family members living in other areas
purchased NTFPs from their neighbors. The group of occasional sellers reduced their
household consumption of NTFPs to meet this demand. When requests were high, villagers
sold nearly all of their NTFPs and went looking for more. Occasional sellers might trans­
form themselves into full-time sellers, thus becoming an integral part of the NTFP supply
chain. Instead of gathering NTFPs directly from the forests, full-time sellers bought them
from other villagers and sold them at the market and/or to traders for higher prices. When
demand is high, full-time sellers traveled to other villages and CFs to search for NTFPs. In
doing so, they become outsiders in other villages. Local villagers view outsiders as compe­
titors, thus intensifying the race for resources. Locals often say “they never get what they
need, the outsiders took it already, even before sunrise.” The same was true about local
villagers who become outsiders elsewhere.
This situation reflected two issues: congruence of biophysical and geographic bound­
aries of the forest and village, and overlapping roles of forest users. Clear forest demarca­
tion is needed for effective CF management, otherwise it will discourage villagers from
166 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

complying with existing rules and regulations (Elinor Ostrom’s 8 Principles for
Managing A Commons, 1990). Furthermore, socioeconomic development portrays
a “better life” making people want to reach that elusive standard. Rural residents are
no exception. Roads make it easy for villagers to travel long distances to search for open-
access NTFPs, despite official designation and/or formal rules and regulations, which
basically aim to control access to timber products and wildlife and to patrol forest fires
and encroachment of CF areas. Villagers who are locals at one CF are outsiders at
another one.
The importance of NTFPs for diversifying livelihoods (e.g. sedentary local villagers,
mobilized labor, and marginalized forest users) creates additional pressure on CFs
(Jarernsuk et al. 2015; Mahonya et al. 2019; Le and Nguyen 2020; Wimonlsakcharoen
et al. 2020; Duong et al. 2021). For example, some harvesters burn areas in advance because
they think it will stimulate re-growth of bamboo shoots; some cut large branches to pick
young shoots of wild vegetables; while others spend long hours searching NTFPs in CFs
even when they harbor only small amounts of NTFPs.
Forest-people connections through social and cultural institutions, coupled with a local
villager mentality of “taking enough to eat today” with respect to nature, are two important
ways for keeping forest degradation in check. Forest users adjusted their harvest practices to
accommodate both market demands and availability of NTFPs in CFs. However, due to
socioeconomic development, it is likely that forest-people connections will also change. For
example, Le and Nguyen (2020) documented key determinants of a household’s depen­
dence on NTFPs in Vietnam, including the number of household laborers and additional
sources of cash income (e.g. off-farm income, animal husbandry income, other forest
activities income, pension and salaries). Eventually, market-oriented utilization and gov­
ernance will replace subsistence and customary-based management over time, but the
extent and specific context of such change will depend on various place-based attributes
(Roth and Dressler 2012).
Finally, urbanization, as a result of socioeconomic development, mobilizes people from
villages to cities, and vice versa. A ripple effect produces an expansion of forest-food
consumption, wherever people move. Non-timber forest product collection and consump­
tion patterns are shifting from local subsistence to meeting the needs of urban residents,
driven by profits and increased market demands. A flow of forest ecosystem services in local
communities, which in turn, helps to protect the forest through proper management, is in
trouble. Local villagers responded to this leakage in several ways, such as adjusting house­
hold consumption, expanding harvests from one CF to others, and/or changing their roles
from harvesters to traders, or from casual to full-time sellers.
The passage of time changes things: forests, people and their land-use practices.
Subsistence, once dependent on forest resources for basic necessities of life, is also changing.
Market goods and wealth are becoming essential, even in remote areas. Exploitation of
NTFPs and forest degradation is foregone conclusions. Several measures have been intro­
duced to delay these outcomes in Thailand, including agroforestry, smallholder forestry,
and sufficient economy-based agriculture. In addition to rural community transformation,
forest-people connections or community forests are also changing. General projection, that
is, subsistence to market-driven livelihoods, is clear, but the specific direction and amount is
not, depending on the particularities of place.
 FORESTS, TREES AND LIVELIHOOD 167

Acknowledgements
This paper is part of a Ph.D. thesis. We appreciate the help from village leaders and villagers at
Non Pho, Noi Lamphu and Dong Bang, and outsiders who answered our questions. We also thank
the Integrated Water Resource Management Research and Development Center in Northeast
Thailand, Khon Kaen University who provided useful comments and insights, also travel grants
to participate in conferences. Last, but not least, we acknowledge Dr. Mark Morgan, School of
Natural Resources at the University of Missouri who edited and improved the manuscript in
several ways.

References
Achard FE, Beuchle R, Mayaux R, Stibig H, Bodart C, Brink A, Carboni S, Desclee B, Donnay F,
Eva HD, et al. 2014. Determination of tropical deforestation rates and related carbon losses from
1990 to 2010. Glob Change Biol. 20(8):2540–2554. doi:10.1111/gcb.12605.
Ashraf J, Pandey R, De Jong W. 2017. Assessment of bio-physical, social and economic drivers for
forest transition in Asia-Pacific region. For Policy and Econ. 76:35–44. doi:10.1016/j.
forpol.2016.07.008.
Balatsky AV, Balatsky GI, Borysov SS. 2015. Resource demand growth and sustainability due to
increased world consumption. Sustainability. 7(3):3430–3440. doi:10.3390/su7033430.
Cordell HK, Chamberlain JL. 2004. Recreation and nontimber forest products. In: Rauscher HM,
Johnsen K, editors. Southern forest science: past, present, and future. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS–75.
Asheville (NC): U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.
Chapter 23; p. 394.
Delang C. 2002. Deforestation in northern Thailand: the result of Hmong farming practices or
Thai development strategies. Soc and Nat Resour. 15(6):483–501. doi:10.1080/
08941920290069137.
Dressler W, Roth R. 2011. The good, the bad, and the contradictory: neoliberal conservation
governance in rural Southeast Asia. World Dev. 39(5):851–862. doi:10.1016/j.
worlddev.2010.08.016.
Duong TMP, Lobry De Bruyn L, Kristiansen P, Gr M, Wilkes J. 2021. Nature and level of NTFP
reliance: a case study in the buffer zone of Cat Tien National Park, Vietnam. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods. 30(2):1–17. doi:10.1080/14728028.2021.1891976.
[FAO] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. 2016. Forty years of community-
based forestry-A review of its extent and effectiveness. Rome (Italy): Food and Agricultural
Organization of the United Nations.
Jarernsuk S, Petchsri S, Poolprasert P, Wattanadumrong B, Jongjitvimoll T. 2015. Economic value of
non-timber forest products used by the largest Hmong community in Thailand. NU Intl J of Sci. 12
(1):38–51.
Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. 1970. Determining sample size for research activities. Edu and
Psychological Measurement. 30(3):607–610. doi:10.1177/001316447003000308.
Lanui A, Panae S, Jehama W. 2016. Movement into the industrial sector of female workers at Ban
Sungai Panae, Ba Na Subdistrict, Mueang district, Pattani province. J of Academic Resources
Prince of Songkla Univ. 27(1):63–71.
Le HD, Nguyen TTK. 2020. The contribution of non-timber forest products to the livelihoods of
forest-dependent people: a case study in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam. Forests, Trees and
Livelihoods. 29(3):143–157. doi:10.1080/14728028.2020.1770131.
Leblond J-P. 2014. Thai forest debates and the unequal appropriation of spatial knowledge tools.
Conservation and Soc. 12(4):425–436. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.155588.
Mahonya S, Shackleton C, Schreckenberg K. 2019. Non-timber forest product use and market chains
along a deforestation gradient in Southwest Malawi. Front in for and Glob Change. 2(71):1–11.
doi:10.3389/ffgc.2019.00071.
168 P. PHUMEE AND A. PAGDEE

Margono BA, Potapov PV, Turubanova S, Stolle F, Matthew C. 2014. Primary forest cover loss in
Indonesia over 2000–2012. Nat Clim Chang. 4(8):730–735. doi:10.1038/nclimate2277.
Muller AE, Rother MD, Brancalion PS, Naves RP, Rodrigues RR, Pizo MA. 2014. Can overharvesting
of a non–timber-forest-product change the regeneration dynamics of a tropical rainforest? The
case study of Euterpe edulis. For Ecol and Manag. 324:117–125. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2013.09.001.
Phromma I, Pagdee P, Ishida AI, Uttaranakorn S. 2019. Protected area co-management and land use
conflicts adjacent to Phu Kao-Phu Phan Kham National Park, Thailand. J of Sustainable For. 38
(5):486–507.
Porter–Bolland L, Ellis EA, Guariguata MR, Ruiz-Mallén I, Negrete-Yankelevich S, Reyes-García V.
2011. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: an assessment of their conservation
effectiveness across the tropics. For Ecol and Manag. 268:6–17. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2011.05.034.
Pungprasert V. 1989. Hill tribe people blamed for deforestation. In: McKinnon J, Vienne B, editors.
Hill tribes today: problems in change. 363-367. Bangkok (Thailand): White Lotus-Storm.
RECOFTC and AWG-SF. 2017. Social forestry and climate change in the ASEAN region: situational
analysis 2016. Bangkok (Thailand):RECOFTC – The Center for People and Forests.
[RFD] Royal Forest Department. 2014. [Lawsuits on forest resources]. [accessed 2014 Jul 18]. http://
forestinfo.forest.go.th/55/Content.aspx?id=2 .
[RFD] Royal Forest Department. 2019. [Forest areas in Thailand 1973–2017]. [accessed 2021 Feb 27].
http://forestinfo.forest.go.th/55/Content.aspx?id=72 .
[RFD] Royal Forest Department. 2021a. [Data summary: community forest projects registered by
provinces]. Community forest management Bureau. [accessed 2021 Feb 24]. http://forestinfo.
forest.go.th/55/fCom_area.aspx .
[RFD] Royal Forest Department. 2021b. [Data summary: country’s forest area in 1973–2019]. Office
of the forest land management; [accessed 2021 February 24]. http://forestinfo.forest.go.th/Content/
file/stat2562/Table_1.pdf .
Richards DR, Friess DA. 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in Southeast Asia,
2000–2012. PNAS January 12, 2016. 13(2):344–349.
Rigg J, Salamanca A, Parnwell M. 2012. Joining the dots of agrarian change in Asia: a 25 year view
from Thailand. World Dev. 40(7):1469–1481. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.03.001.
Roth R, Dressler W. 2012. Market-oriented conservation governance: the particularities of place.
Geoforum. 43(3):363–366. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.01.006.
Sharmal D, Tiwari BK, Chaturvedi SS, Diengdoh E. 2015. Status, utilization and economic valuation
of non-timber forest products of Arunachal Pradesh, India. J of for and Environmental Sci. 31
(1):24–37.
Srisompun O, Isvilanonda S. 2012. Efficiency change in Thailand rice production: evidence from
panel data analysis. J of Development and Agricultural Econ. 4(4):101–108.
Wimonlsakcharoen W, Dumrongrojwatthana P, Guy T. 2020. Production of non-timber forest
products (NTFPs) and diversity of harvesters’ practices and decision-making processes in northern
Thailand community forests. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques. 343:39–52. doi:10.19182/bft2020.343.
a31845.
Wittayapak C, Baird GI. 2018. Communal land titling dilemmas in northern Thailand: from com­
munity forestry to beneficial yet risky and uncertain options. Land Use Policy. 71:320–328.
doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.019.
Xu D, Zhang J, Rasul G, Liu S, Xie F, Cao M, Liu E. 2015. Household livelihood strategies and
dependence on agriculture in the mountainous settlements in the three gorges reservoir area.
Sustainability. 7(5):4850–4869. doi:10.3390/su7054850.
Zeng Z, Gower DB, Wood EF. 2018. Accelerating forest loss in Southeast Asian Massif in the 21st
century: a case study in Nan province, Thailand. Glob Change Biol. 24(8):4682–4695. doi:10.1111/
gcb.14366.