4.7 Article

Collaboration and Conflict-Developing Forest Restoration Techniques for Northern Thailand's Upper Watersheds Whilst Meeting the Needs of Science and Communities

Journal

FORESTS
Volume 10, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/f10090732

Keywords

forest restoration; framework-species method

Categories

Funding

  1. Riche Monde (Bangkok) Ltd.
  2. Biodiversity Research and Training Program
  3. Rajapruek Institute Foundation
  4. Plant a Tree Today
  5. WWF Thailand
  6. King Power Duty Free
  7. Britain's Eden Project

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper describes an early example of Forest Landscape Restoration (FLR), which resulted from collaboration between a university, local community, and national park authority in the upper Mae Sa Valley, near Chiang Mai City, northern Thailand. Working together, the Hmong community of Ban Mae Sa Mai, Doi Suthep National Park Authority and Chiang Mai University's Forest Restoration Research Unit (FORRU-CMU) established a chronosequence of trial restoration plots from 1996 to 2013, to test the framework-species method of forest restoration. The project developed successful restoration techniques and gained insights into the factors that influence villagers' participation in forest restoration. Recovery of forest biomass, carbon storage, structure, biodiversity and ecological functioning exceeded expectations. Villagers appreciated the improved water security resulting from the project, as well as a better relationship with the park authority and increased land security. Recently, however, tree chopping and a breakdown in fire-prevention measures (perhaps symptoms of project fatigue) have threatened the sustainability of the plot system. The project demonstrates the importance of a sound scientific basis for forest restoration projects, long-term institutional support, and appropriate funding mechanisms, to achieve sustainability.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available