Land Use Change from Complex Causes and Negative Impacts to Potential Solution in Mae Wang Watershed, Mae Wang District, Chiang Mai Province
By Chiang Mai University

In Thailand’s mountainous Northern Region, declining and changing forest cover in upper tributary watersheds has generally been accompanied by increasing population density and expansion of areas under agricultural land uses. This has resulted in growing concern about the implications of forest alteration, fragmentation and loss for biological and cultural diversity, sustainable resource use and longer-term economic conditions of the region and downstream portions of the country. Given the increasing complexity of livelihood and landscape dynamics in the region, it was appropriate to apply some TUL-SEA tools to provide an initial appraisal of agroforestry in these multifunctional mosaic landscapes, while at the same time testing use of the tools under specific types of local conditions and situations found in the region.

Key initial objectives of this project were to understand specific local systems of land use change and factors affecting it; to evaluate local social and economic systems associated with different types of livelihood, land use and environmental change; and to conduct participatory stakeholder assessments of local poverty, livelihood and environmental dynamics in upper tributary contexts of Northern Thailand. Thus, the team applied a set of three tools that are in line with this research approach: DriLUC, PaLA and PAPOLD. In order to improve coherence and efficiency, research needs for all three tools were first assessed to identify activities where cross-team collaboration could eliminate duplication and where data sharing could build on the relative strengths of each sub-team to improve the quality of analyses at the required multiple levels. Sub-teams focusing on each tool implemented DriLUC, PaLA and PAPOLD in three villages representing three different ethnic groups in an upper portion of the Mae Wang watershed: Ban Mae Sapok Tai (Karen ethnicity), Ban Huay Nam Rin (Hmong ethnicity) and Ban Sob Win (Northern Thai ethnicity).

The rich cultural heritage of Northern Thailand includes ethnic groups with diverse traditional beliefs, knowledge, customs and resources use systems that are reflected in local livelihood and land use practices that have evolved through many generations. Local sacred groves or sacred forests are a part of these cultures that is believed to have played a critical role in conserving local biodiversity. Sacred groves are also considered local cultural treasures that have been tended through traditional stewardship for many years, and their preservation is crucial to maintaining important cultural belief systems. Local laws and customs often limit human activity in these forests: hunting, grazing and logging may be prohibited or restricted, and villagers take care not to damage the natural surroundings. To help assess the role and importance of sacred groves in maintaining biodiversity, the QBS (Quick Biodiversity Survey) method was also applied in two villages: Ban Mae Sapok Tai (Karen ethnicity) and Ban Mude Lhong (Lawa ethnicity) village.

Overall project implementation activities completed in (Northern) Thailand included:

1. DriLUC (Rapid Appraisal of Drivers of Land Use Change)
2. PAPOLD (Participatory Analysis of Poverty, Livelihood and Environment Dynamics)
3. PaLA (Participatory Landscape Appraisal)
4. QBS (Quick Biodiversity Survey)

 

Drivers of Land Use Change (DriLUC) - A Case Study of Mae Win Sub-District, Mae Wang District, Chiang Mai, Thailand.

Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Social Science and Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University

Introduction

Mae Win Sub-District is located in Mae Wang sub-basin of Mae Ping basin and covers an area of approximately 442 square kilometers. Communities within Mae Wang sub-basin consist of three ethnic groups including Khon Muang (local Northern Thai), Karen and Hmong. The Hmong villages are located in highlands at elevations above 1,200 msl, while the Karen communities are scattered on uplands about 800-1.200 msl, mostly in the valleys and the local Thai communities are settled in lowlands below 800 msl. The local Thai communities also have moved up into the middle of the uplands, resulting in a mixed settlement of Khon Muang and Karen communities. Many Hmong and Karen communities are located in remote areas with limited roads access, especially in the rainy season. The variation in settlement locations are often distinguished as upstream and downstream communities, especially when there are problems or conflicts over resource use competition. Usually, the upper communities are to blame or accused of resource abuse, those are causes of forest destruction, downstream water shortage and other environment impacts. However, such issues really need to be investigated further since many stakeholders and actors have played important roles in natural resource use and resource management.

Changes in land use and agriculture in Mae Wang watershed areas have been taken place over the past decades due to several factors or driving forces, especially the government policies concerned with economic development and natural resource management as well as increasing population pressure. Considerable amount of forest lands had been converted into agricultural land and settlements. In highland and upland areas, traditional land use of shifting cultivation practiced mostly by ethnic minorities have been changed to more permanent land use since land expansion becomes more restricted and prohibited by forest laws. Agricultural practices have been changing from subsistence basis to market-oriented cropping and more intensified cropping. Apparently, people’s livelihood and activities in different communities also have changed over time under given circumstances or influential factors.

Three villages of three ethic groups, Khon Muang (local Northern Thai), Karen and Hmong, located in Mae Wang watershed were selected for a case study of DriLUC application together with PALA and PAPOLD in order to improve understanding of factors affecting change in land use systems; evaluate socio-economic changes associated with changing land use, livelihoods and environmental conditions; and analyze stakeholders and their potential use of participatory tools for improved understanding of poverty, livelihood and environment dynamics.

Applied methods and steps

Summary of findings

Land use transitions in Mae Wang watershed could be distinguished as 3 periods as following:

1. Logging concessions (1917-1961)

In the earlier period, people usually settled along hillsides in the valleys and lived simply on subsistence basis. Logging concessions in Mae Wang watershed began in 1917 as reported by the Bombay-Burma of England, and in 1947 the British Borneo company came into the area. Teak trees in the middle and lower parts of Mae Wang watershed were massively logged and transported along Mae Wang river down to Mae Khan and Mae Ping rivers. In the mean time, opium cultivation by Hmong in highland areas began in 1937, particularly after the World War II more forest lands were used for opium fields in 1950’s. Opium cultivation and trade were also adopted by Karen and Khon Muang communities because it provided good income. However, due to pressure from the western countries, the opium production and trades were legally prohibited in 1959 but illegal opium growing continued. During1952-1957, the logging concessions were transgerred to local companies to cut non-teak species. After the concessionaires left the area, illegal logging took place and Mae Wang watershed experienced a rapid decline in forest cover. It appeared that logging was the major cause of natural resources and environmental destruction. Moreover, constructed roads by the government for logging transportation through Mae Win sub-district became the route for Northern Thai (Khon Muang) to expand their lands into the middle part of Mae Wang watershed and permanently settled there until now.

2. Expansion of economic and cash crops (1961-1985)

During this period, external factors tended to play important roles in people’s livelihoods. It was the beginning of the first five-year plan of the national socio-economic development plan of the country in order to improve basic infrastructure for people “water, electricity and roads”. For economic development, growing commercial crops in both upland and lowland areas were promoted and supported by government agencies, agricultural cooperatives, banks and groups of merchants. As a consequence, subsistence-based production was changed to commercial cropping production and agricultural lands were expanded, especially in 1970’s. Another pressure on land use was from an increasing number of population approximately from 59,784 in 1970 to 96,560 in 1980 (San Pa Tong/Mae Wang district, 1993). At the same time, the cropping substitution program was carried out to replace opium and shifting cultivation in the upper Mae Wang watershed areas. To protect forest covers and manage forest lands, the government declared the National Park Act in 1961 and the National Forest Reserve Act in 1964. Later, land expansion in this area becomes more restricted and limited by these forest laws. Land use for cash cropping have become intensified, especially in lower areas of Mae Wang watershed. In highland and upper areas, the Royal project has provided various supports and introduced other new cash crops which are suitable to the areas since 1972. The investors and merchants were also involved in crop production such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides supply etc. People’s livelinood and activities were apparently affected by these external factors at various degrees. As land use for cash cropping increased, the demand of water use was also increased by both highland and lowland communities. Furthermore, after roads to villages in the upper Mae Wang watershed were constructed under several projects during 1978 – 1979, villagers could access to outside communities and connect to markets in the city directly without the middle man. However, roads constructions also reulted in soil erosion and seditment accumulation in water streams and weirs, particularly in Doi Mon Ya waterhead area.

3. Natural Resource Conservation (1985-Present)

With growing concerns and conflicts over the depletion and degradation of natural resourses and environment, the government formulated numerous laws, decrees and policies governing the management of natural resources, especially forest management issues. The National Forest committee was establised in 1985 to develop a stretegy for forest resource development and conservation. The government annouced cabinet resolutions identifying 25 major watershed in 1982 and watershed classicfication in 1985. Recommended land use in each watershed class was also gradually developed upto 1995. In addition, all forest consessions were revoked in 1989 after the natural disaster ocurrance related to logging operatons in late 1988.

Map 1. Mae Wang watershed classification, Mae Win Sub-District, Chiang Mai, Thailand

Since1992, based on the national forest conservation policy, the government by the Royal Forest Department (RFD) has begun to strictly enforce the forest laws in highland and upland areas of Mae Wang watershed that is currently classified as the national forest reserve Communities settled in this area have been affected directly by the forest laws that reject the rights of settlements and traditional forest land utilization. Although this area has not yet been announced as the national park or protected forest area, it is recognized as class 1A of watershed classification that is protected headwater area with permanent forest cover and any land utilization is not allowed (Map1). As a consequence, villagers who use that forest land for living are arrested as illegal forest intruder.

Map 2: Expansion of protected forests and the national park areas in Mae Win Sub-district, Chiang Mai

According to the National Park Act of 1961, the upper areas of Mae Wang watershed have been originally categorized and planned to be under the national park boundary that covers the areas of several villages including community forests (Map 2). Traditional forest land utilization has become more restricted and some villagers are arrested that creates more conflicts between villagers and RFD officials. Some local leaders are anxious to this change and wondering about the idea of separating people from forests by the state monopoly. Meanwhile, the villagers got together and built up the local net work for wildlife and forest conservation of Mae Wang watershed. Later, they also collaborate with other local net works to work on forest land use and conservation issues. In 2001, they protested against the expansion of the natural park area in Mae Win sub-district or Mae Wang watershed and the government action was paused. Groups of the Karen and the Hmong villages also got together and set up the local net work of natural resource management in the upper Mae Wang watershed to maintain the forests.

From 1985 to the present time, based on landsat-data (1989-2007), approximately 84% of the total area in Mae Win Sub-District or Mae Wang watershed is forest cover or public forest land. The rest of the total areas are mainly agricultural land and a small proportion of community settlements, accounting for16% and 0.40% respectively. In lower and upper areas, land use for cash cropping has become intensified and diversified. The upper public forest land has also been used for eco-tourism purposes including elephant riding, bamboo rafting and forest trekking as well as tourist recreations. The eco-tourism has emerged in Sop Win village since 1987 by local investors and businessmen from the city. Because this forest land has been classified as the national forest reserve (not as protected forest or the nationa park), therefore, the tourist operaters don’t have to pay the national park fees and only pay a small amount of fee to Sop Win Administration Organizatuin. The change of land tenure or land ownership has also contribued to land use change since many agricultural lands were transformed into resorts and urban estate during 1988-1991. Moreover, in 1994, the expandsion of community and urban areas stimulated outside investors to buy lands for real estate business including housing and resorts, this also cuased the water use conflict between local communities and investors. Many locol people who faced enonimic crisis had to sell or abandon their lands and look for off-farm work.

Conclusion

This study implies that the government policies concerned with natural resource conservation and economic development were primarily driving forces of land use change and conflicts. Land use transitions over the periods of time reflected the influences of numerous factors involved. In addition to increasing population pressure, it appeared that economic expansion was an important factor that stimulated the change in land use and other natural resources use as well. Besides problems of natural resources (land, forest and water) degradation, the problems related to forest management by the government agencies were due to mismanagement, misunderstanding and lack of or people’s participation or participatory approach, particularly in the areas where communities have already existed prior to the forest laws being declared. Although the concept of peoples’ participation has been incorporated in laws, decrees and policies, many problems remain unclear, especially land rights and clarification of forest boundaries.
 

 

Participatory Analysis of Poverty, Livelihood and Environment Dynamics (PAPOLD) - A Case Study at Mae Win Sub-district, Mae Wang District, Chiang Mai Province, Thailand

Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Social Science and Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University

Background

Mae Win Sub-district (tambon) covers an area of approximately 442 sq km in the Mae Wang Sub-Basin of the Ping River Basin. Mae Win is located 52 kilometers south of Chiang Mai City, and has a total population of about 12,675. There are three ethnic groups including Karen, Hmong and Northern Thai (Khon Muang). The northern Thai live mainly in lowland areas, whereas the Karen and the Hmong live in higher mountain areas. Most of local people are generally engaged in agriculture. Other occupations include off-farm employment or labor, home-based industry or handicrafts, tourist operations, trades and other. Participatory analysis of poverty, livelihoods and environment dynamics (PAPOLD) was applied to understand poverty, people’s livelihood strategies and environmental linkages in particular areas. Thus, three distinctive villages in Mae Wang watershed were selected for this study.

1. Ban Huay Nam Rin – The Hmong village is situated in the mountain valley within forest reserve areas at an elevation of 500 meters above sea level. In 1976, Hmong families moved into this area from nearby village(Ban Mai Sawan) where the government allocated plots of land to them, but the land was very arid and rather small for their agricultural practices. Besides agricultural practices, in 1985 tourists started coming to this village for natural tours (elephant riding and trekking) because of its attractive landscape. However, these activities were discontinued due to problems of the elephant camp in 2003. Hmong people’s livelihoods have been changing accordingly.

2. Ban Mae Sapok Tai – The Karen village is located in uplands at an elevation of 800 meters above sea level and surrounded by mountain ranges. The Karen settled in this area over a hundred years ago. Traditionally, they practiced shifting cultivation with conseversive manners as well as terraced paddy along narrow valleys. Most of the Karen people are farmers and their main incomes are from agriculture. About 40% of people grow upland cash crops for the Royal project and 60% of people grow rice. Its pleasant landscape and Karen culture have drawn people’s attention for eco-tourism and land investment. Tourist services began about six years ago, however, the Karen people did not gain much benefits from tourist activities such as home-stay, selling handicrafts and souvenirs.

3. Ban Sop Win - Eestablished over a hundred years ago (1897), the Northern Thai (Khon Muang) village is located at elevations of 300-500 meters above sea level, in the mountain valley where two streams (Mae Wang and Mae Win) are merging and flowing through this area. About 23 years ago, a former village headman and a local Karen were inspired by eco-tourism idea and started elephant riding and bamboo rafting along Mae Wang River. Although most villagers are still engaged in agriculture, a number of villagers (about 10%) are totally involved with tourist operations and services. As more and more tourists come to visit this area, eco-tourism activities have been expanded to accommodate those tourists including home-stay and other services. Wood products of home-based wood industry become popular as well.

Reflection on the methods

Summary of findings

Self-defined poverty
Three ethnic groups of local people (Northern Thai, Karen and Hmong) living in Mae Win Sub-district see poverty as a dynamic problem driven by economic systems from the past that have altered subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture of various forms and to eco-tourism in order to generate income for living. Principally, definition of poverty from villagers’ point of view is not based on income only because each ethnicity has different culture, tradition and way of life over hundreds of years. However, most people agreed that as long as they have sufficient food to eat and live simply and happily, meaning they are not poor.

Crucial incidences affecting livelihoods and poverty
After forest concessions ban in 1989, a number of lowland people (Khon Muang) and hilltribe people migrated to Mae Wang watershed areas to seek for agricultural land and to occupy lands without land rights, resulting in an increasing number of people in this area. Infrastructure development by the government (such as electricity, paved roads, tap-water and telephone) provided people opportunities for trades and urban jobs. In 2001, local people protested against the expansion of natural park areas in Mae Win Sub-District and that issue was ceased. Since 1997 eco-tourism has been expanded gradually and later become quite popular among tourists, particularly in Sop Win and partially in Huay Nam Rin and Mae Sapok Tai villages. However, eco-tourism at Huay Nam Rin stopped in 2003 because the elephant camp was closed down and moved to Sop Win village.

Household income and livelihood
This study finds that off-farm income of two villages, Sop Win and Hauy Nam Rin are greater than on- farm income, while Mae Sapok Tai has more income from on-from than off-farm. Since the Royal project development center has been established at Mae Sapok Tai, villagers are encouraged to grow crops for this project. Plus the Karen way of life was related to traditional shifting cultivation and their off-farm jobs began during forest concessions as elephant caretakers. Even presently, there is a small number of the Karen working off-farm. Most of SopWin villagers are involved in various activities related to eco-tourism operations and share different amounts of income. Huay Nam Rin villagers often work off-farm as they have mainly orchards (longan and lychee) and no paddy.

In 2009, the average monthly income per household of Sop Win, Mae Sapok Tai and Huay Nam Rin villages were 11,644 baht, 9,259 baht and 8,910 baht respectively. The above figure also shows that Sop Win village had higher income than other two villages. This indicates that eco-tourism has generated a substantial amount of income for people in Sop Win village. However, there are only 10% of people gaining most benefit from natural resource use. Other local people do not gain much benefit from eco-tourism due to village locations and landscapes. Moreover, it was found that income distribution is still based on agriculture since most households have their own orchards or gardens such as longan, lychee and banana etc., providing products to markets from season to season.

Access to eco-tourism data/information
At present, eco-tourism activities have clearly generated income for local people. Sop Win village is the center for eco-tourism operations that provide services for tourists both Thais and foreigners, including elephant camps, elephant riding, bamboo rafting, eating and shopping places. Cooperating with tour agencies in Chiang Mai, Mae Sapok Tai villagers also provide services like home-stay and trekking for 3-4 days trip or one day trip whereas eco-tourism at Huay Nam Rin was in the past.

Management and environmental impacts
Obviously people’s livelihoods in communities have been changed, especially in Sop Win village where more and more tourists come to visit leading to problems of environmental management. The degradation of natural resources appears to be an issue of concerns. Garbage/waste problem and other management problems including traffic and parking areas during high season may become serious problems in this area if these are not well managed.

Overall picture of households getting out of poverty
Based on education and livelihood, Sop win villagers are not poor as seen by other villagers. Better-off households rather work hard and carry out various businesses such as rafting, home-stays and shops, which help to increase their income. Whereas villagers of Huay Nam Rin look upon themselves as poor people due to lack of basic structure access such as electricity and decent roads although they also own cars, motor bites and mobile phones as well. Besides working on-farm, they try to gain more income from elsewhere. Most villagers of Mae Sapok Tai grow crops for the Royal project but not all year round because of climatic conditions. They get so little profits from eco-tourism business like home-stays that seems unfair and worth doing. Thus they also look for other jobs as labors but they still don’t have enough income. Overall, these three villages are likely to have their own approaches to improve livelihoods.

Opportunity and limitation (strength and weakness)
Location or landscape of Sop Win (Northern Thai) village is suitable for eco-tourism business and is accessible. Situated in Mae Wang watershed next to Doi Inthanon Natural Park, Mae Wang River is flowing through the area all year round. Mae Sapok Tai (Karen) village is a beautiful area for trekking whereas Huay Nam Rin (Hmong) village has only a few tourists because the elephant camp moved away. Overall, eco-tourism provides opportunities for people to earn income in the village.
 

Limitation of eco- tourism is that most tourist activities areas are forest lands being occupied by known persons in the village. The persons who occupied the areas first have rights to carry out their operations and prevent other people opportunities to do so. Thus, only a small group of people actually gain benefit when considering a total number of people living in the area.

Poverty, people livelihood strategies and natural environment linkages:

Conclusion

This study explains people’s livelihoods and natural environment linkages taking place in different locations. People’s livelihoods are actually influenced by so many factors internally and externally those determine how people adapt and make a living under such circumstances or pressure from various sources as shown in the table above. Naturally, landscape features of a particular area could also affect and be affected by people’s livelihoods. Three ethnic groups of people living in the studied areas reflected the linkages of livelihoods and natural resource use as well as poverty perspective.

 

Participatory Landscape Analysis (PaLA) - Case study in Mae Win Sub-District, Chiang Mai Province, Thailand

Sustainable Land Use and Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Social Science and Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University

Introduction
Mae Win Sub-District (tambon) is located in mountainous areas, about 52 kilometers south of Chiang Mai City and is covering an area of approximately 442 sq km in the Mae Wang Sub-Basin of the Ping River Basin. Its area covers almost entirely Mae Wang watershed and the annual rainfall is about 600-800 mm. About 69 % of its area is classified as forest cover or forest pubic lands. Agricultural land holding is accounting for 24% and about 60 % of people are engaged in agriculture. Other occupations include off-farm employment, home-based industry or handicrafts, tourist operation and trade (Mae Win Sub-District Administrative Organization, 2007). Predominantly, there are three ethnic groups residing in this area, including Northern Thai (Khon Muang), Karen and Hmong. The Northern Thai mostly live in lowland areas, while the Karen and the Hmong live in higher mountain areas. Presumably, the diversity of ethnic background and culture may reflect on people’s livelihoods and land use patterns. Therefore, 3 villages located in Mae Win Sub-District or Mae Wang watershed were selected as studied sites, i.e., Ban Mae Sapok Tai (Karen), Ban Huay Nam Rin (Hmong) and Ban Sob Win (Northern Thai). Participatory Landscape Analysis (PaLA) was applied to understand villagers’ perception on land use patterns and practices in relation to its landscape.

Applied Methods

Summary of Findings

Village landscapes and Livelihoods
The studied villages are situated in upland areas of Mae Wang watershed and its areas are mountain valleys and mostly forest lands at elevations of 500-1,000 meters above sea level. The Northern Thai or Khon Muang village also occupies lowland areas below 500 meters where Mae Wang River flows through the village. Originally, villagers practiced shifting cultivation with upland rice and corn in the uplands and grew wet-rice in the lowlands for household subsistence. Terraced rice paddy were found along the valleys in the Karen village, while no paddy fields were found in the Hmong village due to Hmong’s culture, limited landscape and insufficient water supply. At present, opium fields disappeared and shifting cultivation drastically declined while land use patterns and practices have been changes from subsistence-based farming to more market-oriented cash cropping. People’s livelihoods and activities have been changed in response to influential factors involved, in order to make a living and earn more income. Agricultural land use has become more intensified and diversified for cash copping such as vegetables, flowers and fruit trees. In addition, public forest lands have been used for eco-tourism activities including elephant riding, rafting, forest trekking and tourist recreations, particularly in Sop Win village where its landscape is suitable for such activities. Overall landscapes of these three villages are rather attractive to tourists and outside investors. As a consequence, some plots of lands have been transformed to real estates and resorts. Even though, eco-tourism seems to generate more income for a group of villagers, these activities tend to affect the village landscape and result in the degradation of natural resources (land, forest and water) as well as other environmental problems.

Land cover change in Mae Win Sub-District
Land use change was analysed by using aerial photo of 1954 and data obtained from ASTER of 2007. In 1954 it was found that forest land, cultivated land, settlements and other land were 84.74%, 4.0%, 0.16% and 11.08% respectively. In 2007, forest land declined slightly to 83.64% while cultivated land considerably increased to 15.96 % and settlement also increased to 0.40 %. This implies that other land (idle land and grass land) and a small proportion of forest were converted into cultivated land and settlements. However, these results are somewhat different from data obtained from Mae Win Sub-District Administrative Organization (2007). Villagers stated that reforestation and secondary forests in former opium and fallow fields are parts of the remaining forest covers.

Land use change in three villages

^{Note: Upland crops are cash crops grown in upland areas including vegetables, flowers and some temperate fruit trees under the Royal project.}

Comparisons of land use change in three villages of different ethnic groups are shown in the table below:

The Hmong village (Ban Huay Nam Rin)
In 2010, most of its area is covered with forest about 84.6 % and it was lost by 3.2% as compared with year 2002, whereas the areas of upland cash crops and orchards (dominated by longan and lychee) increased nearly the same amount of forest land lost. Paddy was not practiced in this area.
The Northern Thai village (Ban Sob Win)
From 2002 to 2010, forest cover declined about 6.4% but orchards, mainly longan, increased from 19 % to 24%. In 2010, upland crops occupy about 2.3% of its total area. Paddy fields slightly decreased from 3.9% to 3.2% due to flooding in the lowlands.
The Karen village (Ban Mae Sapok Tai)
In 2010, the remaining forest cover is 78.7 % of the total area and it decreased about 7% as compared with year 2002. Growing upland crops have been promoted and supported by the Royal project. In 2010, the areas of upland crops and orchards were found, accounting for 4.2 % and 1.6% respectively. Paddy and terraced paddy fields also increased by 1.3% of the total land. This implies that partially vanished forest areas were used for upland cash crops, orchards and paddy fields.

Moreover, from 2002 to 2010 settlements or residential areas of these three villages did not expand with time as expected. The settlement areas of Sop Win and Mae Sapok were decreased about 0.3% and 0.2 % of its total village area. From this study, it was also found that some villagers who had financial difficulties sold their lands to outside investors.

Current land use patterns
Based on discussions with villagers/stakeholders and land use data in 2010, maps of land use patterns of the three villages were prepared to show plots of land allocated for different types of land use or proportions of land use in each village landscape.

Problems related to landscapes and livelihoods
The Hmong village located on the outermost part of Mae Win Sub-District has not been registered officially as an administrative village. Thus, this makes it rather difficult for village development, especially infrastructures such as electricity and decent roads. The Northern Thai village (Sop Win) faces the problems related to eco-tourism activities such as tourist management, garbage, water quality and water shortage in the dry season. Agricultural production in the Karen village is not sufficient for their living. Moreover, many villagers in these villages do not have official land rights or tenure due to the forest laws and yet some plots of lands have been sold to outside investors.

Conclusion

Land use patterns and practices by villagers in the studied areas have changed in recent decades in response to numerous factors involved, including increasing population, economic expansion, forest laws and policies, support and promotion by government agencies and development projects as well as outside investors. Villagers tended to adapt and utilize their lands according to such influential factors and existing landscapes. At present, most of the total areas are forest covers although the forests depleted in the past decade. Shifting cultivation in the uplands declined, previous fallow fields and forest lands have been partially used for orchards (langon and lychee) and upland cash crops ( vegetables, flowers and some temperate fruit trees) promoted by the Royal project. Terraced paddy fields are found mostly in the Karen village and lowland paddy are found in the Khon Maung or local Thai village while there is no paddy in the Hmong village. Land use for cash cropping become more intensified, resulting in soil deterioration, increasing demand of water use and downstream water shortage. It appears that eco-tourism activities are potentially alternative sources of income but such activities could affect the landscape and environmental conditions.
 

Roles and Importance of Sacred Groves in Biodiversity Conservation in Chiang Mai, Thailand

Prasit Wangpakapattanawong, Auemporn Junsongduang, and Anantika Ratnamhin
Biology Department, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University

Study background

Sacred places have long and diverse histories in human cultures and demonstrate ancient links between peoples and their environments (Anderson, et al. 2005). In many regions of the world, sacred sites have been shown to have a major effect on conservation, ecology and environment due to the special precautions and restrictions associated with them (Anderson, et al. 2005). Traditional respect for the environment and access restrictions to sacred sites have often led to well-conserved areas with high biological diversity within otherwise degraded environments (Schaaf and Lee, 2003). The same sacred place may be recognized as special by individuals from very different cultures, religions, histories, and ecologies, although they may interpret it quite differently. One important form of sacred sites is sacred forest or sacred groves. The sacred forests are found in Africa, Asia, Europe, Australia and America. Their existence has also been reported in Ghana, Syria, Nigeria, Turkey and Japan (Khumbongmayum, et al. 2004).

The sacred groves or sacred forest are protected areas of forest because of religious belief and constitute an important aspect of the culture life of various communities throughout the world (Huges, 1997: Chandrashekara and Sankar, 1998). It is an old tradition of preserving small patches of old growth forest as a part of their culture and religious beliefs and manifested by a range of traditions and cultural value of the indigenous people who respect the groves with beliefs in nature worship inherited from their ancestors (Upadhaya, et al. 2003). There are segment of landscape or forest patch that containing tree and others form of life rich in biodiversity. The sacred forests are informal managed as part of a local cultural tradition, without much intervention from State Forest Departments and represent a functional link between social life and forest management system of a regional. They act as reservoirs of much local biodiversity preserving unique flora and fauna because their worshiping of the sacred groves can lead to relatively undisturbed landscape compared to surrounding areas (Khumbongmayum, 2006). As a result, it is expected that these landscapes are blessed with great biodiversity. Not only in biodiversity conservation, the groves also play an important role in water and soil conservation. These sacred groves, which were once highly revered and maintained, are now fast degrading under the influence of rapid socioeconomic transformation and materialistic attitude (Jaryan, et al. 2010).

In northern Thailand, there are many groups of hill tribes such as Karen, Lahu, Hmong, Lisu, Akha, Mien and Lawa. Each group of hill tribe has its own customs, language, dress and spiritual beliefs. For example, the customs of Karen and Lawa are respectful of the natural surroundings of their community. Karen and Lawa have developed their culture, traditional belief, knowledge, customs and resources use systems through their productive activities and living practices over many times or generations. The sacred groves or sacred forest is the one of their culture that has played a critical role in conserving local biodiversity. These sites are cultural treasures that have been tended through traditional stewardship for many years, and their preservation is crucial to maintaining their cultural system. Local laws and customs often limit human activity in these forests: hunting, grazing and logging may be prohibited or restricted, and villagers take care not to damage the natural surroundings.

Main result

Trees and sapling of the sacred forests of Ban Mae Hae Tai Karen and Ban Mude Lhong Lawa villages, Chiang Mai, Thailand

 

Reflection to the methodology

Normally, ecologists use species area curves to determine a suitable sampling area to represent a population for plant (or other interested organisms) richness and/or diversity. The suitable area is determined as an area, in which an accumulative number of the interested species doesn’t increase. The Quick Biodiversity Survey (QBS) employs the belt transect method of ten (8 m x 8 m each) plots at every 100 m along a 1-km transect to survey for trees and another 10 (4m x 4 m each) plots along the same transect to survey for saplings (higher than 2 m, and smaller than 31 cm in girth). In this survey, species area curves were also drawn as below. It is shown that the sampling areas covered by the QBS method might not be representative of the populations.

 

back to top ▲