Households located inside two biodiversity corridors in Vietnam's central Annamite range now report materially higher earnings than neighbouring families outside those corridors, a new study shows. The extra money came primarily from payments linked to conservation, a shift that changed the local cost-benefit calculation for living within protected, connected landscapes.
Researchers interviewed 120 households across four villages in Quang Nam and Thua Thien provinces to compare livelihoods inside and outside corridor boundaries. The design was meant to test whether income streams tied to corridor status could compensate households for losses when authorities tighten rules on forest use. The team found a clear redistribution of income sources: families inside corridors received significantly more income overall, while also reporting reduced earnings from extracting forest products after corridors were designated and rules were enforced.
The authors frame that pattern as an explicit trade-off between securing habitat connectivity and preserving traditional access to forest resources. They also stress that direct payments are only one channel of benefit from intact forest areas. The paper highlights longer-term ecosystem services and potential green-economy opportunities for nearby communities, including improved water quality, stronger pollinator populations and jobs connected to conservation efforts.
"By providing regular financial benefits from forest protection, programs like PFES [Payment for Forest Ecosystem Services] create incentives for communities to maintain forest cover and reduce pressures on critical habitats," said study lead author Nguyen Van Tri Tin, a conservation scientist at Southern Cross University in Australia at the time of the study.
Published in Conservation Science and Practice, the study argues that pairing corridor designation with steady payments and other local benefits can make connectivity projects economically viable for residents. At the same time, the findings underline the need for planners to address lost income from restricted forest access so that conservation does not come at the expense of household welfare.
The evidence comes from a rugged, species-rich mountain landscape and gives policymakers and conservation managers empirical material to weigh when designing corridor investments and compensation mechanisms. The authors conclude that targeted payments and alternative livelihood options will be central to winning local support for linking protected areas.
