Next Article in Journal
Role of Species and Planting Configuration on Transpiration and Microclimate for Urban Trees
Next Article in Special Issue
Participatory Assessment of Ecosystem Services from Community-Managed Planted Forests in Bhutan
Previous Article in Journal
Response of Soil Microbial Community to C:N:P Stoichiometry along a Caragana korshinskii Restoration Gradient on the Loess Plateau, China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Do Locals Have a Say? Community Experiences of Participation in Governing Forest Plantations in Tanzania
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Forests
Volume 11
Issue 8
10.3390/f11080822
forests-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spatial Assessment of Ecosystem Services from Planted Forests in Central Vietnam

by
Kiran Paudyal
1,2,*,
Yusuf B. Samsudin
3,
Himlal Baral
1,3,
Beni Okarda
3,
Vu Tan Phuong
4,
Shyam Paudel
5 and
Rodney J. Keenan
1
1
School of Ecosystem and Forest Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia
2
Forest Action, Nepal, Lalitpur Metropolitan City—4, Bagdol 44600, Nepal
3
Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor 16000, Indonesia
4
Vietnam Academy of Forest Sciences, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam
5
United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Development Programme, UN House, Caicoli Street (Obrigado Barracks), Dili P.O. Box No. 008, Timor-Leste
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2020, 11(8), 822; https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080822
Submission received: 19 June 2020 / Revised: 13 July 2020 / Accepted: 22 July 2020 / Published: 29 July 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Forests, Plantations, and Land Use)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Globally, planted forests are increasing, providing increased resources to forest industries and ecosystem services (ES) to local and wider communities. However, assessment of the impacts of plantations on ES has been limited. Planted forests have expanded rapidly in Vietnam over the last 20 years, with much of the planting undertaken by smallholder growers using exotic Acacia and Eucalyptus species. This study aimed to test a framework to assess changes in four ES due to an increase in Acacia plantations from 2005–2015 in central Vietnam: carbon sequestration, sediment retention, water yield and habitat. Quantitative and qualitative indicators for each service were derived from the literature. Results showed that the area of planted forests in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces increased from 130,930 hectares (ha) to 182,508 ha, mostly replacing non-forest areas (degraded lands, grasslands and agricultural lands) and poor forests. The framework demonstrated capacity to assess the effect of planted forests on wood flow, carbon stocks, sediment retention, streamflow and the extent of wildlife habitat. Apart from the wood supply and carbon sequestration, more research is required to translate biophysical indicators to benefit relevant indicators related to human welfare. The study also revealed that the area of rich forests decreased by 20% over the ten years, mostly through degradation to poorer quality natural forests. Therefore, at the landscape scale, improvement in ES due to conversion of non-forests to planted forests was offset by a reduction in some services as a result of degradation of native forest from rich to poorer condition. Assessment of changes in ES due to planted forests also needs to consider other landscape changes. These analyses can inform policymakers, forest owners and managers, environmental organizations and local communities of the benefits and impacts of planted forests and provide an improved basis for payments for ES and potential additional income for smallholder tree growers.

1. Introduction

Planted forests are defined as ‘forest predominantly composed of trees established through planting and deliberate seeding’ [1]. Globally, natural forests are decreasing while planted forests expanded by about 12.3 million hectares (ha) between 2010 and 2015 [2] or the current area of planted forests is about 7% of total forest cover. Planted forest established on degraded land can reduce industry pressures on natural forests and provide other benefits and services [3,4,5,6]. The Asia Pacific region has been a focus for expansion of intensively managed planted forests [7] due to demand for wood in new processing plants and policies to rehabilitate degraded land. Increasing global population and wealth has also escalated demand of planted forests and the potential of provide ecosystem services (ES) from planted forests [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. Some studies suggest that planted forests generally supply low level of ES compared to natural forests and may be more susceptible to soil erosion or other impacts [16]. However, conversion of agricultural or degraded forest land to plantations may result in improved supply of ES. Baral et al. 2016 [16] proposed a framework for the assessment of ES resulting from the conversion of land to planted forests, but this has not been implemented and tested widely.
Planted forests in Vietnam have increased rapidly from about two million ha in 2000 to about 4.2 million ha in 2018 [17,18] or more than 26% of the total forest area, with approximately two-thirds of the plantations area managed by smallholders [19,20]. This rapid expansion of plantations in recent years is due to the Government of Vietnam (GOV) implementing reforestation programs that have been initiated from the 1980s in response to extensive deforestation and forest degradation during and after the American war [21]. These programs also aimed to fulfil the timber demands of industries and increase income to rural populations [22]. They have been considered a major success, increasing forest cover by about 2.37% annually from 1990 to 2010 [23,24,25] and Vietnam is one of few countries in Asia to achieve a forest transition [26,27]. Increase in planted forests is considered to have improved general forest quality, biodiversity and enhanced ecological functions [28]. However, the change in ES depends on the extent of change in forest cover, previous land cover, management practices in planted forests and the type of ES being assessed [16,29].
The north-central coastal region has been a center for rapid plantations establishment and now has some of largest areas of planted forests in Vietnam. Plantations are predominantly Acacia species. These grow rapidly, with strong markets for pulpwood, veneer and saw logs. The region is identified in the Forestry Development Strategy as a major supply area for timber and non-timber forest products (NTFPs). This study focused on two provinces in this region: Thừa Thiên-Huế (TTH) and Quảng Trị (QT). This study aimed to test a framework for ES assessment in planted forests [16] to assess the effects of land cover change on important ES and identify potential trade-offs and synergies between different ES in a landscape undergoing rapid land use and land cover change. It provides the first analysis for this region of the impact of plantations on ES using readily available data and published estimates on the relationship between tree cover and different types of services.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Region

TTH and QT provinces are located between 106°30′49.47″–108°11′39.58″ E and 15°59′40.11″–17°10′4.83″ N (Figure 1). The total land area is 979,000 ha (503,320 ha in TTH and 474,570 ha in QT Province). In 2014 the population of TTH was 1.13 million people, with 0.6 million in QT province. The topography of the region is diverse, with high mountainous regions in the west and flatter, sandy coastal areas to the east [30]. The average annual temperature is 25 °C, and the annual average precipitation is 2540 mm. The climate is tropical monsoon with a dry season and a heavy monsoon season. The region has a strong wet season, and rainfall can reach 1000 mm in some months [31]. The heavy rainfall, in a short period and steep catchments, results in severe flooding with mountainous areas prone to high rates of soil erosion and landslides, causing major disaster risks [31,32].
The GOV has had major programs for soil conservation and timber production in the region since the 1980s. Recent statistical data indicates that planted forest areas in these two provinces increased from 147,311 ha in 2005 to 196,216 ha in 2015.

2.2. Framework for ES Assessment from Planted Forests

As planted forests provide many ES beyond timber production, an improved evidence base is required for effective planning and management of ES from planted forest forests [16]. Studies show that planted forests supply low level of ES values than natural forests mainly resulting from intensive, large-scale monocultures and are more susceptible to soil erosion [3,33]. However, overall ES benefits from mixed plantations were highest in comparison to coniferous and broadleaf plantations [3]. Further, multi-purposed mixed plantations can help mitigate climate change as a result of high carbon sequestration, preventing deforestation as well as protecting remaining natural forests at the same time through increased productivity [33]. In the context, reliable assessment of ES at different spatial and temporal scales is required for further investment in planted forests. However, there has not been focused on the assessment of ES from planted forests due to a lack of suitable local frameworks, methods and evaluation tools [16,34,35,36]. Hence, the assessment framework proposed by Baral et al. 2016 [16] and used by Paudyal et al. 2019 [32] (Figure 2) was used to assess changes in ES resulting from the establishment of planted forests in this region. Conceptually, the framework consists of three components such as (i) silviculture and management for planted forests (Figure 2a); (ii) ES provisions based on categories of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (Figure 2b); and (iii) ES assessing approaches and methods (Figure 2c).

2.3. Land Use and Land Cover Classification

This study used land use and land cover data of National Forest Inventory, Monitoring and Assessment Program (NFIMAP) developed by Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI) of Vietnam. The data were generated from medium resolution satellite imagery such as Sentinel and Landsat image using object-based image analysis that was combined with visual interpretation method. The reference points for interpretation and accuracy assessment were gathered from field survey and high-resolution images such as SPOT 7 or other equivalent images. The overall accuracy of land use change detection results shows confidence level at 95% [38]. The land cover classification used by the FIPI of Vietnam was used for this study. Five categories of land cover types were found in the study area (Table 1). The land cover information of 2005 and 2015 was also retrieved from the same source based on available satellite imagery data and the MARD 2017 [38] report.

2.4. Ecosystem Services Assessment

Many different ecosystem services can be assessed, including provisioning services (ecosystem goods such as timber, pulp, food or biomass-based energy); regulating services (water regulation, reduced erosion and effects on local climate and carbon sequestration; habitat services (wildlife habitat and increased species and genetic diversity); and cultural services (recreation, ecotourism, education and spiritual values). Provision of ES is strongly influenced by silviculture and management.
ES identified in the study area are not of equal priority for the community. It is also not feasible to assess all ES, given limited resources [35,39,40]. ES relevant to Vietnam were compiled from recent studies [41,42,43,44,45] and discussed at a stakeholder workshop organized in TTH province on 17 March 2018 to identify priorities for assessment. Using participatory approaches, the participants ranked different services and selected locally important ES for detailed study (Table 2).
ES assessment can be qualitative and quantitative [16]. We carried out mostly quantitative assessments of priority services using existing data. These are described below.

2.4.1. Wood Supply

The increased plantation area on wood supply was assessed using a simple indicator of average annual plantation timber production [25]—21 m3/ha/year. This is a simplification, but data were not available on the productivity classes for plantation areas.

2.4.2. Carbon Stocks

Carbon (C) storage and sequestration are important forest ES in Vietnam and globally [46]. C stocks were estimated using a Tier 3 approach of IPCC 2013—national allometric equations [47] and plot measurement data (diameter at breast height and height of trees), using data from the NFIMAP of Vietnam [38] (Table 3). Average carbon stocks varied between different types of land cover and between the two assessment years for the same land cover type. The average C stock for natural forest classifications was lower in 2015 compared to 2005, while average C stock for planted forests increased.

2.4.3. Freshwater

We assessed the potential freshwater yield for different land cover types. Estimated values for water use for different land use and land cover types [48] were integrated into a GIS and assigned to five classes: very low, low, medium, high and very high. The rich forest was assumed to have very low water yield because it has a generally high leaf area, while the medium forest was valued to have low water yield [49,50,51,52,53,54]. Poor forest and planted forest were assessed to have medium water yield. The non-forest land was ranked to have very high-water yield.

2.4.4. Sediment Retention

Soil loss is a function of land cover type, rainfall intensity, soil erosivity, land cover types, the degree of steepness, crop management and conservation practices tree cover [36,55,56,57,58]. Soil erosion and sediment retention are inversely related [59]. Land cover types and their corresponding rate of erosion can be used to estimate the sediment-retention capacity of a landscape where forest quality and density is considered as the primary indicator [36,37,60].
Previous studies have developed five soil erosion classes in Vietnam. There was no data or lack of published information linking soil erosion or sediment retention to land cover for the study region. Data from a study in Bon River, Central Vietnam was used to determine the sediment-retention capacity, which assumes they have similar topography, soil and climatic conditions [61]. This study shows that average soil loss of rich forest is 8.92 ton ha−1 year−1, medium forest 10.51 ton ha−1 year−1, poor forest 11.76 ton ha−1 year−1, and planted forest is 12.76 ton ha−1 year−1 [61]. Similarly, the average loss of non-forest area is considered about 30.33 ton ha−1 year−1 [61].

2.4.5. Habitat Provision

Vietnam is rich in biodiversity with more than 7000 plants species and more than 3800 vertebrate species recorded in the country [62]. Much of this biodiversity was heavily impacted by the American war and subsequent deforestation and forest degradation. Planted forests can support a higher abundance of native fauna and flora compared to agricultural land, but generally have lower biodiversity value than native vegetation [29,63,64,65,66,67,68,69]. Conversion of natural forests to planted forests will generally reduce habitat for biodiversity, although this depends on the condition of the natural forests [5].

2.5. Spatial and Temporal Analysis of Ecosystem Services

For spatial assessment, we developed a simple ranking system to integrate quantitative and qualitative information. The level of ES supply capacity of the different land cover types was then classified into five categories, ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘medium’, ‘high’ and ‘very high’. This was combined with an associated confidence level for spatial and temporal assessment of ES. Biophysical data with different categories of the capacity of land cover type were presented to the expert meeting. Experts discussed the capacity each land cover type to supply ES and agreed on a ranking. The estimated quantity and associated value class information were transferred into GIS for spatial assessment and mapping of relative capacity of land cover to supply ES. Value classes were transferred into GIS for comparison between the two time periods and to map the relative capacity of different parts of the study area to supply ES.

3. Results

3.1. Change in Land Use and Land Cover in Quảng Trị and Thien-Hue Provinces

There were observable changes in land cover in two provinces between 2005 and 2015 (Table 4 and Table 5, Figure 3). Planted forest area increased by a 51,578 ha (31,680 ha in QT and 19,898 ha in TTH province), mostly through establishment on non-forest land. In QT Province, total natural forest declined by 6.4%, largely through the conversion of poor forests to the plantations. The dynamics were different in TTH Province, the overall area of natural forests increased by 12.2%, largely through the conversion of non-forest to the poor forest area. Further, Rich forest area increased by 9.5% in QT province but decreased by 32.4% in TTH Province.

3.2. Assessment of Ecosystem Services

3.2.1. Timber Production

Spatial assessment of timber production capacity was beyond the scope of this study, and an average timber production figure was applied to the increased plantation area. The increased plantation area could potentially provide an increased volume of 1.08 million m3/year of timber across the two provinces. This would depend on the site quality and management of the plantations. Returns to growers vary from 16% to 32%, but the poorest sites provide lower returns [25]. The increased timber volume would provide net income after costs of US$11 million/year to the smallholder growers. Assuming an average of 5 ha of plantations for each smallholder, this is a potential additional income of over US$1,000 per year to each landowner. Additional economic benefits are generated through labor payments during management, harvest and transport of timber and through the supply chain.

3.2.2. Freshwater Provision

The landscape capacity to supply freshwater may have decreased in the studied period because of non-forest area decreased and planted, and natural forest areas increased (Figure 4). Central to western hilly region showed had higher forest cover and therefore reduced freshwater supply capacity. It was not possible to quantify this reduced water use.

3.2.3. Carbon Stock

Forest carbon stock in planted forests increased between 2005 and 2015 from 2.7 million tC to 4.3 million tC (56.7%) due to increases in the area and average carbon stock in planted forests. This represents net sequestration of 5.7 million tCO2 over the ten years, an average of 0.57 million tCO2 per year or about 1.2% of Vietnam’s estimated national emissions [70]. However, across the study region, forest carbon stocks decreased by 3.4% (from 24.9 million tons in 2005 to 24.1 million tons in 2015 (Table 6) due to conversion of rich forest (20%) to medium or poor forests and reduced average carbon stocks in the rich forest. Carbon stocks in medium and poor forests increased slightly during this assessment period.
The distribution of carbon stock varied across the study area (Figure 5). The carbon stock in 2005 was concentrated in central to the western hilly area, whereas the area of carbon stock shifted towards central to eastern cost due to the expansion of planted forest in that region.

3.2.4. Sediment Retention

Sediment-retention capacity (inverse of soil loss) was highly influenced by the change in land cover in the study area (Table 7, Figure 6). Rich forest decreased (by 20%), and planted forests increased between 2005 and 2015 and both had a major impact on overall sediment retention. The conversion of non-forest to planted forest reduced soil loss, while degradation of the rich forest increased soil loss. The aggregate sediment-retention capacity increased by 13.1% due to the conversion of non-forest to the forest. The sediment-retention capacity of natural forests was enhanced by 20% (>92,000 tons) due to the conversion of rich forest (20%) to medium or poor forests. This is an anomaly of the assessment approach. Overall, sediment-retention capacity across the two provinces increased by 5.69%, with total soil loss reducing from ~20.5 million tons in 2005 to ~19.3 million tons in 2015 (Table 7).

3.2.5. Habitat Provision

Habitat provision was highly influenced by the land use and land cover types and their change over the period (Figure 7). Results revealed that dark green area in the landscape had a high habitat provision area which was mostly an area with rich forest and planted forests. In addition, the medium or secondary forests that had almost reached their maximum productivity stage were judged to have a high habitat condition. The light green in the ES map indicated the medium capacity of habitat provision in the poor forest or young secondary forest and planted forest. Almost all non-forest area provided very low habitat value. Yellowish green pigments in spatial map showed that low to the very low capacity of habitat provision limited around the degraded land old agricultural area.

4. Discussion

4.1. Land Use and Land Cover Change

This study indicated that land cover change, primarily conversion of non-forest land to planted forest, between 2005 and 2015 in the central region of Vietnam improved the capacity of the landscape to supply ES. Expansion of planted forests, as well as the increased area of poor forest on non-forest land, reduced landscape capacity to supply freshwater, but increased sediment retention, habitat provision and carbon stocks.
However, the study also identified a loss of services associated with the degradation of rich forests to medium or poor forests in TTH province. This type of degradation is occurring in most of the provinces of Vietnam, where the degradation of rich forests has accelerated since the 1950s [71]. National statistics show about 2500 ha of forest illegally destroyed every year during the period 2010–2013 [18] due to ill-defined property rights and ineffective laws enforcement mechanisms [71]. Positive changes to ES associated with planted forests were not great enough to offset impacts of degradation of rich natural forest to medium and poor forests on the provision of some ES. Here we discuss these results in relation to comparable studies.

4.1.1. Freshwater

Impact of converting non-forest land to planted forests on downstream water availability has been a concern of water managers in some parts of the world for quite some time [72,73,74,75]. Higher Leaf Area Index in planted forests means they consume more water than other vegetation types, although infiltration may be higher in these high rainfall conditions on steep slopes [76] and levels of low flows may increase in some systems [77]. In addition, where the planted forests are harvested when quite young (4–6 years old), significant parts of the landscape, about 20–30%, will have no trees or young seedlings that use less water. Increased evaporation and retention of water higher in the landscape can help reduce flood risks and related soil erosion (see below). Catchments, where most trees are planted, are highly flood-prone, and the expansion of plantations on non-forest land can reduce flood risks. More research is required to understand the impact of afforestation on the water for irrigation and hydropower and for reducing flood risks in these types of high rainfall, subtropical environments.

4.1.2. Sediment Retention

Areas covered by natural forest have the highest soil loss, followed by medium and low forests, planted forests and non-forest land (agriculture area), respectively. Soil loss is strongly influenced by topography, and most of natural forests are located in steep topography, while most of the non-forest areas are located in relatively flat land [30]. This can be different in other settings. A study in Yen Bai province showed that reducing forest cover caused significant soil loss, while research in Hoa Binh province showed that afforestation reduced soil erosion rates [78,79]. Forest cover loss increased average runoff by about 87%, and sediment yield has increased about 46% annually due, while runoff and sediment yield were decreased for about 50% due increasing of forest cover and soil conservation application [79].
Hence, the soil loss was decreased or sediment retention was increased in our study area as a result of increasing forest cover from conversion of non-forests to the plantations. However, timber harvesting, transport practices and the extent of the bare ground after harvesting of the planted forest have the potential to increase soil erosion and long-term productivity loss unless good practice and mitigation measures are implemented [80]. This can include restricting harvesting on steep slopes, controlling skid trail construction and management with water flow controls, good road construction and maintenance and the use of appropriate equipment for harvesting in different types of terrain.
It should be noted that the forest canopy does not provide direct protection against erosion; rather the forest canopy minimizes the erosive power of rainwater into the soil [72,81]. Additionally—in relation to water consumption—an increasing area of forest vegetation can increase infiltration and reduce runoff on the soil surface [48]. A study case in Japan indicated that rainfall intensity is the main driver of soil loss, with slope and tree species also being important factors [82]. Other studies in Vietnam show that soil erosion varies greatly between the wet season and dry season [58] and different agriculture crops have different soil erosion rate [58]. These factors need to be considered in future assessments of the impacts of land cover change on soil erosion.

4.1.3. Carbon

While the study showed that carbon stocks in planted forests increased over the assessment period, this was not enough to offset losses of carbon in the landscape due to the degradation of natural forests. This indicates that stronger policy measures, such as monitoring, regulation and incentives, are required to reduce natural forest degradation. The carbon stock can be affected by different forms of management practices in planted forests. For example, species choice and rotation length also affect carbon stock [41]. Planted forest could be managed on longer rotations for higher carbon stock. For example, Acacia plantations can be used to facilitate the restoration of natural forests by underplanting native species [83] that will achieve higher carbon stock in the long term. Uneven-aged and multi-storied planted forests can potentially sequester more carbon in total [84]. Longer rotation Acacia plantations in Vietnam may potentially be more profitable than those managed on shorter rotations [19] but take more time to generate income. Hence, smallholders prefer short-rotation planted forest. Given planted forests are managed by smallholder on short rotations, the actual carbon stock at any point in time will vary with harvesting and management decisions.

4.1.4. Habitat Provision

Land cover changes between 2005 and 2015 both increased and decreased habitat for many species. Conversion of non-forest to planted forests would result in a more suitable habitat for many wildlife species, although this depends on management intensity and understory retention [9]. Although undisturbed natural forests are generally likely to provide the best habitat conditions, these comprise a relatively small proportion of the total forest area in Vietnam and conservation objectives will need to be met from a diversity of forest conditions. Biodiversity could be improved by better protecting native forests and integrating native forest restoration into planted forests [9,85] is required for Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification. Smallholders should be properly compensated to improve biodiversity in planted forests. In Vietnam, where a large area of planted forest is operated by smallholders, different types of incentives will be required.
Planted forests on degraded land can provide alternative resources and reduce pressures on natural forests [4,86]. Acacia plantations in this region have significantly increased incomes for smallholder households and this also reduces pressures to clear or hunt in, natural forests.

4.2. Application of the ES in the Planted Forests Assessment Framework

The framework developed by Baral et al. 2016 [16] provided a starting point to assess ES from planted forests. The study indicated it was possible with available data to undertake an assessment using established relationships between priority ES and factors such as previous land use, the extent of planting, species, position in the catchment, proximity of natural forest and management intention. Different kinds of data are required to assess tree plantings that are integrated with agriculture (trees outside forests or agroforestry), and to assess the effect of varying stand structures, rotation lengths, management treatments such as spacing, pruning or thinning and the extent and composition of the understory. Assessing conservation and habitat value is particularly problematic as this will depend on the extent of planting, proximity to natural forests, management intensity, understory development and the impact of hunting and other local uses of biodiversity.
The framework provides a sound conceptual base for assessing the potential ES of land use change to planted forests but requires more intensive local data collection to provide a complete picture of the various types of services or disservices provided by planted forests. Research is also required to establish benefit relevant indicators for the assessment of benefits from the planted forests [87]. In addition, the study demonstrated that in applying the framework, it is important to assess the effects of land use change across a catchment or study area. While planted forests themselves may be resulting in improvements to many ES, broader changes in forest condition may mean that these are offset by negative impacts on vegetation in other parts of the study area.

4.3. Enhancing Ecosystem Services from Planted Forests in Vietnam

Managing planted forests for maintaining or improving raw materials supply and enhancing other ES for long-term sustainability requires thorough assessment and documentation [16,42,88]. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) presents an opportunity to enhance ES from planted forests [89]. The Vietnamese government is the first in Asia to implement PES that has successfully improved livelihoods and forest resources in Vietnam [90]. However, some challenges for the implementation remain there such as the very low payment; too small area of the project for significant improvements and quantification of services [90]. This study can provide a guide for ES assessment and improve the basis for payment arrangements. PES programs are providing resources for local communities to patrol and manage natural forest [91,92], but the efficiency of these programs could be improved through better targeting [93]. Examination of different management systems, particularly the type of management that can improve the conditions for water or habitat, is needed to develop a complete understanding of the ES from planted forests.
Forest certification helps to enhance ES in Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has encouraged certification by providing a subsidy for the planted forest. At the same time, certain companies have offered higher prices for certain qualities of logs from certified forests, but the costs are also high [94,95]. Example from the FSC certification for timber is highly adaptable and can incorporate forest ES, e.g., biodiversity conservation, carbon storage, watershed protection, etc [96]. In addition, FSC certification for Acacia plantations in QT province provides higher return compared to the non-FSC certified planted forests, although this comes at some cost to growers in terms of changes in management cost, lack of technical knowledge, annual surveillance audit fees, difficult paperwork, complicated procedures for selling wood and loss of market flexibility [20,94]. The government has a clear policy on sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest certification. Vietnam has also signed a voluntary partnership agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU) for legal trade that is driving the need for certification and provides an opportunity to incorporate ES approach in the planted forest [96].

5. Conclusions

The study identified that a significant change in land cover occurred from non-forest or poor forest to planted forests between 2005 and 2015 in TTH and QT provinces in Central Vietnam that resulted in significant improvement in ES. The area of rich forest decreased by 20%, mostly through degradation to poorer quality natural forests. Planted forests on non-forest land increased carbon stock, habitat provision, reduced erosion and increased sediment retention. Conversion of non-forest areas to planted forests may decrease water yield, but could also increase infiltration, increase low flows and reduce flood risks. The provision of ES at a landscape scale also depends on the changes occurring in natural forests and the agricultural landscape. These changes need to incorporate into ES assessments. The management regime of planted forests also affects the provision of ES.
This initial assessment can be used to quantify the economic value and communicate the wider benefits of ES from planted forests to raise awareness and guide priorities for future investment in planted forests among policymakers, forest owners and managers, environmental organizations and local communities. The results can also provide a basis for new funding opportunities for ES produced from planted forest and other landscape restoration programs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.P., Y.B.S., H.B., V.T.P., S.P. and R.J.K.; data curation, Y.B.S., B.O., V.T.P. and S.P.; formal analysis, B.O.; funding acquisition, R.J.K.; investigation, V.T.P.; methodology, K.P., Y.B.S., H.B., B.O., V.T.P. and R.J.K.; project administration, R.J.K.; supervision, R.J.K.; visualization, B.O.; writing—original draft, K.P., Y.B.S., H.B. and S.P.; writing—review & editing, K.P. and R.J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Grant Number ADP/2014/047 and partly funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) through the KNOWFOR program.

Acknowledgments

This research was carried out by Center for International Forestry Research as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry and a project supported by the Australian Center for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR, project ADP/2014/047) on ‘Improving policies for forest plantations to balance smallholder, industry and environmental needs in Laos and Vietnam’.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. FAO Forest Resources Assessment 2015: Terms and Definitions; Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2015.
  2. Keenan, R.J.; Reams, G.A.; Achard, F.; de Freitas, J.V.; Grainger, A.; Lindquist, E. Dynamics of global forest area: Results from the FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 9–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dai, E.; Zhu, J.; Wang, X.; Xi, W. Multiple ecosystem services of monoculture and mixed plantations: A case study of the Huitong experimental forest of Southern China. Land Use Policy 2018, 79, 717–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ghazoul, J.; Bugalho, M.; Keenan, R. Forests: Economic perks of plantations. Nature 2019, 570, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Liu, C.L.C.; Kuchma, O.; Krutovsky, K.V. Mixed-species versus monocultures in plantation forestry: Development, benefits, ecosystem services and perspectives for the future. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2018, 15, e00419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Warman, R.D. Global wood production from natural forests has peaked. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Payn, T.; Carnus, J.M.; Freer-Smith, P.; Kimberley, M.; Kollert, W.; Liu, S.; Orazio, C.; Rodriguez, L.; Silva, L.N.; Wingfield, M.J. Changes in planted forests and future global implications. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Bauhus, J.; Pokorny, B.; van der Meer, P.J.; Kanowski, P.; Kanninen, M. Ecosystem goods and services—the key for sustainable plantations. In Ecosystem Goods and Services from Plantation Forests; Bauhus, J., van der Meer, P.J., Kanninen, M., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2010; ISBN 9781844077670. [Google Scholar]
  9. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Jactel, H.; Parrotta, J.A.; Ferraz, S.F.B. Role of eucalypt and other planted forests in biodiversity conservation and the provision of biodiversity-related ecosystem services. For. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 301, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Keenan, R.J.; Lamb, D.; Parrotta, J.; Kikkawa, J. Ecosystem management in tropical timber plantations: Satisfying economic, conservation, and social objectives. J. Sustain. For. 1999, 9, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lindenmayer, D.; Messier, C.; Paquette, A.; Hobbs, R.J. Managing tree plantations as novel socioecological systems: Australian and Noth American perspectives. Can. J. For. Res. 2015, 45, 1426–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Miura, S.; Amacher, M.; Hofer, T.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Ernawati; Thackway, R. Protective functions and ecosystem services of global forests in the past quarter-century. For. Ecol. Manag. 2015, 352, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Vihervaara, P.; Marjokorpi, A.; Kumpula, T.; Walls, M.; Kamppinen, M. Ecosystem services of fast-growing tree plantations: A case study on integrating social valuations with land-use changes in Uruguay. For. Policy Econ. 2012, 14, 58–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yao, R.T.; Scarpa, R.; Turner, J.A.; Barnard, T.D.; Rose, J.M.; Palma, J.H.N.; Harrison, D.R. Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand’s planted forests: Socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 98, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Brockerhoff, E.G.; Jactel, H.; Parrotta, J.A.; Quine, C.P.; Sayer, J. Plantation forests and biodiversity: Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 925–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baral, H.; Guariguata, M.R.; Keenan, R.J. A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests. Ecosyst. Serv. 2016, 22, 260–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. FAO Global Forest Resources Assessment 2015 Country Report; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2014.
  18. GSO. Statistical Yearbook of Vietnam 2013; Statistical Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  19. Maraseni, T.N.; Son, H.L.; Cockfield, G.; Duy, H.V.; Nghia, T.D. Comparing the financial returns from Acacia plantations with different plantation densities and rotation ages in Vietnam. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 83, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hoang, H.T.N.; Hoshino, S.; Onitsuka, K.; Maraseni, T. Cost analysis of FSC forest certification and opportunities to cover the costs a case study of Quang Tri FSC group in Central Vietnam. J. For. Res. 2019, 24, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. McElwee, P.D. Forests are Gold: Trees, People and Environmental Rule in Vietnam; University of Washington Press: Seattle, WA, USA, 2016; ISBN 9780295995472. [Google Scholar]
  22. Foley, J.A.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.A.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Cochard, R.; Ngo, D.T.; Waeber, P.O.; Kull, C.A. Extent and causes of forest cover changes in Vietnam’s provinces 1993–2013: A review and analysis of official data. Environ. Rev. 2017, 25, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Imai, N.; Furukawa, T.; Tsujino, R.; Kitamura, S.; Yumoto, T. Factors affecting forest area change in southeast Asia during 1980-2010. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0197391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Frey, G.E.; Cubbage, F.W.; Ha, T.T.T.; Davis, R.R.; Carle, J.B.; Thon, V.X.; Dzung, N.V. Financial analysis and comparison of smallholder forest and state forest enterprise plantations in Central Vietnam. Int. For. Rev. 2018, 20, 181–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. de Jong, W.; Do, D.; Trieu, V. Forest Rehabilitation in Viet Nam: Histories, Realities and Future; Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR): Jakarta, Indonesia, 2006; ISBN 9792446524. [Google Scholar]
  27. Meyfroidt, P.; Lambin, E.F. Forest transition in Vietnam and its environmental impacts. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2008, 14, 1319–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nghiem, N. Biodiversity conservation attitudes and policy tools for promoting biodiversity in tropical planted forests. Biodivers. Conserv. 2013, 22, 373–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Calvino-Cancela, M.; Rubido-bara, M.; Etten, E.J.B. Van Do eucalypt plantations provide habitat for native forest biodiversity? Forest Ecol. Manag. 2012, 270, 153–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pham, T.G.; Degener, J.; Kappas, M. Integrated universal soil loss equation (USLE) and Geographical Information System (GIS) for soil erosion estimation in A Sap basin: Central Vietnam. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2018, 6, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cam, L.V. Soil erosion study by using RUSLE model: A case study in Quang Tri province, Central Vietnam. VNU J. Sci. Earth Sci. 2011, 27, 191–198. [Google Scholar]
  32. Paudyal, K.; Adhikari, S.; Sharma, S.; Samsudin, Y.B.; Paudyal, B.R.; Bhandari, A.; Birhane, E.; Darcha, G.; Long, T.T.; Baral, H. Framework for Assessing Ecosystem Services from Bamboo Forests: Lessons from Asia and Africa; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  33. Paquette, A.; Messier, C. The role of plantations in managing the world’s forests in the Anthropocene. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2010, 8, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Baral, H.; Keenan, R.J.; Stork, N.E.; Kasel, S. Measuring and managing ecosystem goods and services in changing landscapes: A south-east Australian perspective. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2014, 57, 961–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Burkhard, B.; Bhandari, S.P.; Keenan, R.J. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 13, 81–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Bhandari, S.P.; Bhandari, A.; Keenan, R.J. Spatial assessment of the impact of land use and land cover change on supply of ecosystem services in Phewa watershed, Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 36, 100895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Keenan, R.J. Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. Forest Policy Econ. 2018, 90, 67–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. MARD Vietman Emission Reductions Program Document (ER-PD) Annex 5: Emissions Factor Report; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD): Hanoi, Vietnam, 2017.
  39. Baral, H.; Jaung, W.; Bhatta, L.D.; Phuntsho, S.; Sharma, S.; Paudyal, K.; Zarandian, A.; Sears, R.R.; Sharma, R.; Dorji, T.; et al. Approaches and Tools for Assessing Mountain Forest Ecosystem Services; CIFOR: Bogor, Indonesia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  40. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Lowell, K.; Keenan, R.J. Ecosystem services from community-based forestry in Nepal: Realising local and global benefits. Land Use Policy 2017, 63, 342–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Anh, H.V.; Ty, H.X.; Son, V.T.; Thanh, L.V. A Mapping of Ecosystem Services in Quang Tri and Ha Tinh Provinces, Vietnam; RECOFTC—The Center for People and Forests: Bangkok, Thailand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  42. Dai, E.; Wang, X.L.; Zhu, J.J.; Xi, W.M. Quantifying ecosystem service trade-offs for plantation forest management to benefit provisioning and regulating services. Ecol. Evol. 2017, 7, 7807–7821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. FSC. Final Report of the UN Environment/GEF-funded Project ‘Expanding FSC Certification at Landscape Level through Incorporating Additional Ecosystem Services (ID 3951)’. In ForCES: Creating Incentives to Protect Forests by Certifying Ecosystem Services; Forest Stewardship Council (FSC): Bonn, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Kong, I.; Lee, D. Establishment of Priority Forest Areas Based on Hydrological Ecosystem Services in Northern Vietnam. J. Korea Soc. Environ. Restor. Technol. 2014, 17, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Le, T.H.T.; Lee, D.K.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, Y. Public preferences for biodiversity conservation in Vietnam’s Tam Dao National Park. Forest Sci. Technol. 2016, 12, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Carpenter, S.R.; Mooney, H.A.; Agard, J.; Capistrano, D.; Defries, R.S.; Diaz, S.; Dietz, T.; Duraiappah, A.K.; Oteng-Yeboah, A.; Pereira, H.M.; et al. Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 1305–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. IPCC. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gilmour, D. Forests and Water: A Synthesis of the Contemporary Science and its Relevance for Community Forestry in the Asia–Pacific Region; RECOFTC Issue Paper No. 3. RECOFTC; The Center for People and Forests: Bangkok, Thailand, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  49. Benyon, R.G.; Theiveyanathan, S.; Doody, T.M. Impacts of tree plantations on groundwater in south-eastern Australia. Aust. J. Bot. 2006, 54, 181–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lima, W.P.; Laprovitera, R.; Ferraz, S.F.B.; Rodrigues, C.B.; Silva, M.M. Forest Plantations and Water Consumption: A Strategy for Hydrosolidarity. Int. For. Res. 2012, 2012, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mulyana, N. Effect of Pine Forest (Pinus merkusii) on Hydrological Characteristics in the Ciwulun Upstream Sub-River Area of the FMU Tasikmalaya Perum Perhutani Unit III West Java (In Bhasa Indonesia); Bogor Agricultural Institute: Bogor, Indonesia, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  52. Peel, M.; Watson, F.; Vertessy, R.; Lau, A.; Watson, I.; Sutton, M.; Rhodes, B. Predicting the Water Yield Impacts of Forest Disturbance in the Maroondah and Thomson Catchments Using the Macaque Model; Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. 2000. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237375644 (accessed on 2 February 2019).
  53. Slamet, B. Interception and Surface Flow in Transformation of Jambi Lowland Tropical Rain Forests (In Bhasa Indonesia); Bogor Agricultural Institute: Bogor, Indonesia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  54. Vertessy, R.A.; Hatton, T.J.; Benyon, R.G.; Dawes, W.R. Long-term growth and water balance predictions for a mountain ash (Eucalyptus regnans) forest catchment subject to clear-felling and regeneration. Tree Physiol. 1996, 16, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bhandari, K.P.; Aryal, J.; Darnsawasdi, R. A geospatial approach to assessing soil erosion in a watershed by integrating socio-economic determinants and the RUSLE model. Nat. Hazards 2015, 75, 321–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bhandari, K.P.; Darnsawasdi, R. Application of remote sensing and participatory soil erosion assessment approach for soil erosion mapping in a watershed. Walailak J. Sci. Technol. 2015, 12, 689–702. [Google Scholar]
  57. KC, K.B. Mapping soil erosion susceptibility using remote sensing and GIS: A case of the Upper Nam Wa Watershed, Nan Province, Thailand. Environ. Geol. 2009, 57, 695–705. [Google Scholar]
  58. Van De, N.; Douglas, I.; Mcmorrow, J.; Lindley, S.; Thuy Binh, D.K.N.; Van, T.T.; Thanh, L.H.; Tho, N. Erosion and nutrient loss on sloping land under intense cultivation in Southern Vietnam. Geogr. Res. 2008, 46, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tiwari, K.R.; Sitaula, B.K.; Bajracharya, R.M.; Borresen, T. Runoff and soil loss responses to rainfall, land use, terracing and management practices in the Middle Mountains of Nepal. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2009, 59, 197–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Putzel, L.; Bhandari, S.; Keenan, R.J. Change in land use and ecosystem services delivery from community-based forest landscape restoration in the Phewa lake watershed, Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 88–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Phuong, V.T. Forest Valuation in Vietnam; Science and Technique Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  62. Mackinnon, J. Protected Areas Systems Review of the Indo-Malayan Realm; Mackinnon, J., Ed.; The Asian Bureau for Conservation (ABC) and The World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC): Canterbury, UK, 1997; ISBN 6622614687. [Google Scholar]
  63. Felton, A.; Knight, E.; Wood, J.; Zammit, C.; Lindenmayer, D. A meta-analysis of fauna and flora species richness and abundance in plantations and pasture lands. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Kasel, S. Eucalypt establishment on former pine plantations in north-east Victoria: An evaluation of revegetation techniques. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2008, 9, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kavanagh, R.; Law, B.; Lemckert, F.; Stanton, M.; Chidel, M.; Brassil, T.; Towerton, A.; Herring, M. Biodiversity in Eucalypt Plantings Established to Reduce Salinity; A Report for the RIRDC/Land & Water Australia, FWPRDC/MDBC and Joint Venture Agroforestry Program (Publication No. 05/165); Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC): Canberra, Australia, 2005.
  66. Kavanagh, R.P.; Stanton, M.A.; Herring, M.W. Eucalypt plantings on farms benefit woodland birds in south-eastern Australia. Austral Ecol. 2007, 32, 635–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Loyn, R.H.; McNabb, E.G.; Macak, P.; Noble, P. Eucalypt plantations as habitat for birds on previously cleared farmland in south-eastern Australia. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 137, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Munro, N.T.; Fischer, J.; Wood, J.; Lindenmayer, D.B. Revegetation in agricultural areas: The development of structural complexity and floristic diversity. Ecol. Appl. 2009, 19, 1197–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Pawson, S.M.; Brockerhoff, E.G.; Meenken, E.D.; Didham, R.K. Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape. Biodivers. Conserv. 2008, 17, 1127–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Climate Action Tracker Tracking Global Climate Action since 2009: Vietnam. Available online: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/vietnam/ (accessed on 2 April 2020).
  71. Dung, N.V.; Thang, N.N. Forestland rights institutions and forest management of Vietnamese households. Post-Communist Econ. 2017, 29, 90–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Calder, I.; Hofer, T.; Vermont, S.; Warren, P. Towards a new understanding of forests and water. Unasylva 229 2007, 58, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
  73. Dye, P.; Versfeld, D. Managing the hydrological impacts of South African plantation forests: An overview. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jackson, R.B.; Jobbagy, E.G.; Avissar, R.; Roy, S.B.; Barrett, D.J.; Cook, C.W.; Farley, K.A.; Le Maitre, D.C.; McCarl, B.A.; Murray, B.C. Atmospheric science: Trading water for carbon with biological carbon sequestration. Science 2005, 310, 1944–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Vertessy, R.A.; Zhang, L.; Dawes, W.R. Plantations, river flows and river salinity. Aust. For. 2003, 66, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bruijnzeel, L.A. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soil for the trees? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 185–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Keenan, R.J. Planted forests and water in perspective. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Quang, N.H.; Thi, L.; Hang, T.; Thi, P.; Nga, T.; Kappas, M.; Bai, Y. Modelling surface runoff and soil erosion for Yen Bai Province, Vietnam, using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). J. Vietnam. Environ. 2016, 8, 71–79. [Google Scholar]
  79. Ngo, T.S.; Nguyen, D.B.; Shrestha, R.P. Effect of land use change on runoff and sediment yield in Da River basin of Hoa Binh province, Northwest Vietnam. J. Mt. Sci. 2015, 12, 1051–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Amat, J.P.; Boi, P.T.; Robert, A.; Nghi, T.H. Can fast-growing species form high-quality forests in Vietnam, examples in Thu’a Thien-Hue province. Bois et Forêts des Tropiques 2010, 305, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. FAO. Forests and Water; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  82. Razafindrabe, B.H.N.; He, B.; Inoue, S.; Ezaki, T.; Shaw, R. The role of forest stand density in controlling soil erosion: Implications to sediment-related disasters in Japan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2010, 160, 337–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. McNamara, S.; Tinh, D.V.; Erskine, P.D.; Lamb, D.; Yates, D.; Brown, S. Rehabilitating degraded forest land in central Vietnam with mixed native species plantings. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2006, 233, 358–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Van Con, T.; Thang, N.T.; Ha, D.T.T.; Khiem, C.C.; Quy, T.H.; Lam, V.T.; Van Do, T.; Sato, T. Relationship between aboveground biomass and measures of structure and species diversity in tropical forests of Vietnam. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2013, 310, 213–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Paudyal, K.; Putzel, L.; Baral, H.; Chaudhary, S.; Sharma, R.; Bhandari, S.; Poudel, I.; Keenan, R.J. From denuded to green mountains: Process and motivating factors of forest landscape restoration in Phewa Lake watershed, Nepal. Int. For. Rev. 2017, 19, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pirard, R.; Secco, L.; Warman, R. Do timber plantations contribute to forest conservation? Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 57, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Olander, L.P.; Johnston, R.J.; Tallis, H.; Kagan, J.; Maguire, L.A.; Polasky, S.; Urban, D.; Boyd, J.; Wainger, L.; Palmer, M. Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 1262–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ferraz, S.F.B.; De Paula, W.; Bozetti, C. Managing forest plantation landscapes for water conservation. Forest Ecol. Manag. 2013, 301, 58–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Keenan, R.J. Local actions for the common good: Can the application of the ecosystem services concept generate improved societal outcomes from natural resource management? Land Use Policy 2016, 56, 327–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Pham, T.T.; Di Gregorio, M.; Carmenta, R.; Brockhaus, M.; Le, D.N. The REDD+ policy arena in Vietnam: Participation of policy actors. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Paudyal, K.; Baral, H.; Bhandari, S.; Keenan, R.J. Design considerations in supporting payments for ecosystem services from community-managed forests in Nepal. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 20, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Pham, T.T.; Loft, L.; Bennett, K.; Phuong, V.T.; Dung, L.N.; Brunner, J. Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality. Ecosyst. Serv. 2015, 16, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Chu, L.; Quentin Grafton, R.; Keenan, R. Increasing Conservation Efficiency While Maintaining Distributive Goals with the Payment for Environmental Services. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 156, 202–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hoang, H.T.N.; Hoshino, S.; Hashimoto, S. Costs Comparison between FSC and Non FSC Acacia Plantations in Quang Tri Province, Vietnam. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2015, 6, 947–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  95. Hoang, H.T.N.; Hoshino, S.; Hashimoto, S. Forest stewardship council certificate for a group of planters in Vietnam: SWOT analysis and implications. J. For. Res. 2015, 20, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jaung, W.; Putzel, L.; Bull, G.Q.; Kozak, R.; Elliott, C. Forest Stewardship Council certification for forest ecosystem services: An analysis of stakeholder adaptability. Forest Policy Econ. 2016, 70, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Forests 11 00822 g001 550
Figure 1. Map of the study area: Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces in Central Vietnam.
Figure 1. Map of the study area: Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces in Central Vietnam.
Forests 11 00822 g001
Forests 11 00822 g002 550
Figure 2. A framework for assessing ecosystem services (ES) from planted forests in Vietnam. The framework consists of three main components: (a) silviculture and management of planted forests that influences the quality of forests and supply of ES; (b) potential provisioning of ES based on the classification system proposed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), and (c) the main approach of assessing ES which is associated with cost, time and data. The selection of approach/method and the assessment of ES depends on the available cost, time and data requirement for the assessment (Adapted from [16,34,35,36]). Valuation of ES depends on the scale of benefit, which varies from local to wider scales (Adapted from [37]).
Figure 2. A framework for assessing ecosystem services (ES) from planted forests in Vietnam. The framework consists of three main components: (a) silviculture and management of planted forests that influences the quality of forests and supply of ES; (b) potential provisioning of ES based on the classification system proposed by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), and (c) the main approach of assessing ES which is associated with cost, time and data. The selection of approach/method and the assessment of ES depends on the available cost, time and data requirement for the assessment (Adapted from [16,34,35,36]). Valuation of ES depends on the scale of benefit, which varies from local to wider scales (Adapted from [37]).
Forests 11 00822 g002
Forests 11 00822 g003 550
Figure 3. Change of forest land cover on different types of forest from (a) 2005 to (b) 2015.
Figure 3. Change of forest land cover on different types of forest from (a) 2005 to (b) 2015.
Forests 11 00822 g003
Forests 11 00822 g004 550
Figure 4. Distribution of landscape capacity to supply freshwater provision across the study area. (a) Landscape capacity to supply freshwater provision in 2005; (b) the landscape capacity to supply freshwater provision in 2015. The area with dark green colors shows the low capacity to supply freshwater, where the area with light green indicates the medium capacity and the area with yellowish-green designates the high capacity to supply freshwater provision.
Figure 4. Distribution of landscape capacity to supply freshwater provision across the study area. (a) Landscape capacity to supply freshwater provision in 2005; (b) the landscape capacity to supply freshwater provision in 2015. The area with dark green colors shows the low capacity to supply freshwater, where the area with light green indicates the medium capacity and the area with yellowish-green designates the high capacity to supply freshwater provision.
Forests 11 00822 g004
Forests 11 00822 g005 550
Figure 5. Distribution of carbon stock (tC/ha) across the study area. (a) Carbon stock in 2005; (b) carbon stock in 2015. The area with dark green colors shows the high carbon stock region; light green area shows the medium capacity and yellowish-green indicates the area without carbon stock.
Figure 5. Distribution of carbon stock (tC/ha) across the study area. (a) Carbon stock in 2005; (b) carbon stock in 2015. The area with dark green colors shows the high carbon stock region; light green area shows the medium capacity and yellowish-green indicates the area without carbon stock.
Forests 11 00822 g005
Forests 11 00822 g006 550
Figure 6. Distribution of sediment retention (mapped based on soil loss of various land use and land cover types measured in tC/ha/year) across the study area. (a) Sediment retention in 2005; (b) sediment retention in 2015. The area with dark green colors shows the high sediment retention region; light green area shows the medium capacity of sediment retention and yellowish-green indicates the area without sediment retention.
Figure 6. Distribution of sediment retention (mapped based on soil loss of various land use and land cover types measured in tC/ha/year) across the study area. (a) Sediment retention in 2005; (b) sediment retention in 2015. The area with dark green colors shows the high sediment retention region; light green area shows the medium capacity of sediment retention and yellowish-green indicates the area without sediment retention.
Forests 11 00822 g006
Forests 11 00822 g007 550
Figure 7. Distribution of habitat provision across the study area. (a) Habitat provision in 2005; (b) habitat provision in 2015. Area with dark green colors shows the area with high habitat provision; light green indicates the area with a medium capacity of habitat provision and yellowish-green shows the area has inadequate habitat provision.
Figure 7. Distribution of habitat provision across the study area. (a) Habitat provision in 2005; (b) habitat provision in 2015. Area with dark green colors shows the area with high habitat provision; light green indicates the area with a medium capacity of habitat provision and yellowish-green shows the area has inadequate habitat provision.
Forests 11 00822 g007
Table
Table 1. Land cover types in the study area.
Table 1. Land cover types in the study area.
Land Cover TypeDescription
Rich forestsThese are natural evergreen and broadleaf forests with average standing timber stock > 200 m3 ha−1 that include principally old trees, also shrubs, bushes and understory. These types of forests are close to the primary forests.
Medium forestsThese are natural evergreen and broadleaf forests with average standing timber stock 100–200 m3 ha−1 that include a range of uneven-aged trees, also shrubs, bushes and understory. These forests have been influenced by human activities such as logging.
Poor forestsThese are natural evergreen and broadleaf forests with average standing timber stock < 100 m3 ha−1 that have been altered by logging and human activities. They have started to revive through the process of natural regeneration. These forests can be considered degraded forests.
Planted forestsAll kind of plantations are considered planted forest that include trees planted according to set pattern and management for production function; mainly timber and some NTFPs.
Other lands/Non-forest areasLand cover not classified into one of the above categories, including agriculture lands, bare lands, residential areas and water bodies.
Table
Table 2. Important forest ecosystem services (ES) from planted forests identified in Thừa Thiên-Huế and Quảng Trị provinces.
Table 2. Important forest ecosystem services (ES) from planted forests identified in Thừa Thiên-Huế and Quảng Trị provinces.
CategoryImportant ESDescriptionBeneficiariesScale of BenefitsIndicator
Provisioning servicesWood supplySupply of wood for domestic and international timber and furniture industries and international pulp and study manufacturersPrivate (smallholder growers and state forest companies, timber industry owners, traders, workers)Local, regional, globalIncreased wood volume production (m3/ha/year)
FreshwaterReduced siltation and increased freshwater for domestic use, paddy irrigation or hydropowerPublic and private (hydropower and water companies and usersLocal, regionalIncreased volume of water supply (megaliters/year)
Regulating servicesReduced atmospheric greenhouse gasesIncreased forest carbon stock and reduced greenhouse gas emissionsPublic (national and international community)Local, regional, globaltCO2/year carbon sequestration
Reduced soil erosionErosion protection and reduced sedimentationPublicLocal, regionalReduced mass of soil loss (t/year)
Water regulationIncreased evapotranspiration may reduce water supply for irrigation but reduce flood risks.Private water downstream usersLocal, regionalIncreased evapotranspiration (mm/year)
Habitat servicesHabitat provisionImproved habitat for birds, mammals or other functional groupsPublic (existence value, recreation value)Local, globalIncreased habitat area (Qualitative scale)
Table
Table 3. Carbon stock estimates for 2005–2015 by land cover.
Table 3. Carbon stock estimates for 2005–2015 by land cover.
Land Cover TypeCarbon Stock (tC/ha) 2005Carbon Stock (tC/ha) 2015
Rich forest (evergreen broadleaf forest)171.2148.5
Medium forest (evergreen broadleaf forest)73.471.2
Poor forest (evergreen broadleaf forest)31.729.2
Planted forest21.023.6
Non-forest land00
Table
Table 4. Land cover change between 2005–2015 in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces. Unit area is in hectares (ha); the percentage of the area is indicated in the parenthesis.
Table 4. Land cover change between 2005–2015 in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces. Unit area is in hectares (ha); the percentage of the area is indicated in the parenthesis.
Land Cover ClassesAreas of Land CoverChange in Land Cover Area
Quảng TrịThừa Thiên-HuếQuảng TrịThừa Thiên-Huế
20052015200520152005–20152005–2015
Rich forest15,411 (3.3)16,869 (3.6)36,412 (7.4)24,606 (5.0)1459 (9.5)−11,805 (32.4)
Medium forest56,396 (11.9)58,414 (12.3)47,499 (9.7)51,860 (10.5)2018 (3.6)4.362 (9.2)
Poor forest76,650 (16.2)64,191 (13.5)103,000 (21.0)133,276 (27.1)−12,459 (16.3)30,276 (29.4)
Planted forest63,239 (13.3)94,919 (20.0)67,691 (13.8)87,589 (17.8)31,681 (50.1)19,897 (29.4)
Non-forest land262,421 (55.3)239,724 (50.6)237,046 (48.2)194,316 (39.5)−22,698 (8.6)−42,730 (18)
Total474,117 (100)474,117 (100)491,647 (100)491,647 (100)
Table
Table 5. Land cover transition matrix from 2005 to 2015 (ha) for the two provinces.
Table 5. Land cover transition matrix from 2005 to 2015 (ha) for the two provinces.
Land Cover in 2005Land Cover in 2015
Rich ForestMedium ForestPoor ForestPlanted ForestNon-Forest LandTotal
Rich forest36,50412,854203427415751,822
Medium forest497274,10922,7081241982103,895
Poor forest023,310131,990114823,201179,650
Planted forest00473106,05024,407130,930
Non-forest land0140,26274,912384,292499,467
Total41,476110,274197,467182,508434,039965,764
Table
Table 6. Change in forest carbon stock in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces from 2005 to 2015. Unit of carbon stock is in tons (tC), and the percentage is indicated in the parenthesis.
Table 6. Change in forest carbon stock in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces from 2005 to 2015. Unit of carbon stock is in tons (tC), and the percentage is indicated in the parenthesis.
Land Cover ClassesC stocks (tC)Change in C Stock (tC)
20052015
Rich Forest8,873,300 (35.6)6,159,000 (25.6)−2,714,300 (−30.6)
Medium forest7,626,900 (30.6)7,853,700 (32.6)226,800 (3.0)
Poor forest5,694,900 (22.8)5,770,000 (24.0)75,100 (1.3)
Planted forest2,745,600 (11.0)4,303,500 (17.9)1,557,900 (56.7)
Non-forest land000
Total24,942,700 (100)24,0868,200 (100)−854,500 (−3.4)
Table
Table 7. Estimate change in soil loss in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces from 2005 to 2015 associated with the change in the area of different types of land cover. In thousands of tons per year (t/year) and the percentage is indicated in the parenthesis.
Table 7. Estimate change in soil loss in Quảng Trị and Thừa Thiên-Huế Provinces from 2005 to 2015 associated with the change in the area of different types of land cover. In thousands of tons per year (t/year) and the percentage is indicated in the parenthesis.
Land Cover ClassesSoil Loss (KT/Year)Change in Soil Loss (KT/Year)
20052015
Rich Forest462 (2.3)370 (1.9)−92 (−20)
Medium forest1092 (5.3)1159 (6.0)67 (6.1)
Poor forest2112(10.3)2322 (12.0)210 (9.9)
Planted forest1672 (8.2)2329 (12.0)657 (39.4)
Non-forest land15149 (73.9)13164 (68.1)−19845 (−13.1)
Total20486 (100)19344 (100)−1142 (−5.6)

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Paudyal, K.; Samsudin, Y.B.; Baral, H.; Okarda, B.; Phuong, V.T.; Paudel, S.; Keenan, R.J. Spatial Assessment of Ecosystem Services from Planted Forests in Central Vietnam. Forests 2020, 11, 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080822

AMA Style

Paudyal K, Samsudin YB, Baral H, Okarda B, Phuong VT, Paudel S, Keenan RJ. Spatial Assessment of Ecosystem Services from Planted Forests in Central Vietnam. Forests. 2020; 11(8):822. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080822

Chicago/Turabian Style

Paudyal, Kiran, Yusuf B. Samsudin, Himlal Baral, Beni Okarda, Vu Tan Phuong, Shyam Paudel, and Rodney J. Keenan. 2020. "Spatial Assessment of Ecosystem Services from Planted Forests in Central Vietnam" Forests 11, no. 8: 822. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080822

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop