Payment for forest ecosystem services (PFES) policy is a prevalent strategy designed to establish a marketplace where users compensate providers for forest ecosystem services. This research endeavours to scrutinise the impact of PFES on households’ perceptions of forest values and their behaviour towards forest conservation, in conjunction with their socio-economic circumstances and their communal involvement in forest management. By incorporating the social-ecological system framework and the theory of human behaviours in environmental conservation, this study employs a structural equations model to analyse the factors influencing individuals’ perceptions and behaviours towards forest conservation. The findings indicate that the payment of PFES significantly increases forest protection behaviour at the household level and has achieved partial success in activating community mechanisms to guide human behaviour towards forest conservation. Furthermore, it has effectively leveraged the role of state-led social organisations to alter local individuals’ perceptions and behaviours towards forest protection.

1. Adhikari, B., & Agrawal, A. (2013). Understanding the Social and Ecological Outcomes of PES Projects: A Review and an Analysis. Conservation and Society, 11(4), 359-374. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125748
2. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2000). Attitudes and the Attitude-Behavior Relation: Reasoned and Automatic Processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792779943000116
3. Akintunde, E. (2017). Theories and Concepts for Human Behavior in Environmental Preservation. Journal of Environmental Science and Public Health, 01(02), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.26502/jesph.96120012
4. Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience (Vol. 7): Department for International Development London.
5. Bendtsen, E. B., Clausen, L. P. W., & Hansen, S. F. (2021). A review of the state-of-the-art for stakeholder analysis with regard to environmental management and regulation. Journal of Environmental management, 279, 111773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111773
6. Börner, J., Baylis, K., Corbera, E., et al. (2017). The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services. World Development, 96, 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.03.020
7. Brownson, K., Guinessey, E., Carranza, M., et al. (2019). Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes. Ecosystem Services, 39, 100974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100974
8. Carter, S., Arts, B., Giller, K. E., et al. (2018). Climate-smart land use requires local solutions, transdisciplinary research, policy coherence and transparency. Carbon Management, 9(3), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2018.1457907
9. CEMA, & GSO. (2020). Results of the Survey on the Social-Economic status of 53 ethnic minority groups in 2019. Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House.
10. Chu, L., Grafton, R. Q., & Keenan, R. (2019). Increasing Conservation Efficiency While Maintaining Distributive Goals with the Payment for Environmental Services. Ecological Economics, 156, 202-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.003
11. Do, T. H., Vu, T. P., & Catacutan, D. (2018). Payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam: An analysis of buyers’ perspectives and willingness. Ecosystem Services, 32, 134-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.005
12. Duong, N. T. B., & de Groot, W. T. (2018). Distributional risk in PES: Exploring the concept in the Payment for Environmental Forest Services program, Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics, 92, 22-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.03.008
13. FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report. Rome.
14. Gibson, C. C., Williams, J. T., & Ostrom, E. (2005). Local Enforcement and Better Forests. World Development, 33(2), 273–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.013
15. Google. (n.d.-a). [Google Maps Dien Bien, Vietnam]. Retrieved 24th March 2024, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/%C4%90i%E1%BB%87n+Bi%C3%AAn,+Vi%E1%BB%87t+Nam/@21.7200922,102.8712338,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x312d1f0ee0d1fbf3:0x48718c8562df0ef4!8m2!3d21.8042309!4d103.1076525!16zL20vMDJnajJr?entry=ttu.
16. Google. (n.d.-b). [Google Maps Hoa Binh, Vietnam]. Retrieved 24th March 2024, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/H%C3%B2a+B%C3%ACnh,+Vi%E1%BB%87t+Nam/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x313414189ce0d86f:0xa825842a6614fe17?sa=X&ved=1t:242&ictx=111.
17. Google. (n.d.-c). [Google Maps Son Lan, Vietnam]. Retrieved 24th March 2024, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/S%C6%A1n+La,+Vi%E1%BB%87t+Nam/@21.3018528,104.1186521,9z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x31325990dc3d1dd5:0x582d645a6a0f387b!8m2!3d21.1022284!4d103.7289167!16zL20vMDdtMWpj?entry=ttu.
18. Google. (n.d.-d). [Google Maps Northwest region, Vietnam]. Retrieved 24th March 2024, from https://www.google.com/maps/place/T%C3%A2y+B%E1%BA%AFc+B%E1%BB%99,+Vi%E1%BB%87t+Nam/@21.5751156,104.0008209,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x36cd3d41a137e987:0x470ad984b9a8f439!8m2!3d21.6469663!4d103.914399!16zL20vMGR3djZk?entry=ttu
19. Grima, N., Singh, S. J., Smetschka, B., & Ringhofer, L. (2016). Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services, 17, 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.11.010
20. GSO. (2021). Statistic Yeabook of Vietnam 2020. Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House.
21. Hanna, G. (1995). Wilderness-related environmental outcomes of adventure and ecology education programming. The Journal of Environmental Education, 27(1), 21-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1995.9941968
22. Loft, L., Le, D. N., Pham, T. T., et al. (2017). Whose Equity Matters? National to Local Equity Perceptions in Vietnam’s Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services Scheme. Ecological Economics, 135, 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.016
23. Maleksaeidi, H., & Keshavarz, M. (2019). What influences farmers’ intentions to conserve on-farm biodiversity? An application of the theory of planned behavior in fars province, Iran. Global Ecology and Conservation, 20, e00698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00698
24. MARD. (2021). Decree No. 1558/QĐ-BNN-TCLN on The Announcement of the national status of forest in 2020. Hanoi.
25. McElwee, P., Nghiem, T., Le, H., et al. (2014). Payments for environmental services and contested neoliberalisation in developing countries: A case study from Vietnam. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.08.003
26. McElwee, P. D. (2012). Payments for environmental services as neoliberal market-based forest conservation in Vietnam: Panacea or problem? Geoforum, 43(3), 412-426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.04.010
27. McGinnis, M. D., & Ostrom, E. (2014). Social-ecological system framework: initial changes and continuing challenges. Ecology and Society, 19(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/es-06387-190230
28. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Vol. 1): Island Press Washington, DC.
29. Muradian, R., Arsel, M., Pellegrini, L., et al. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win‐win solutions. Conservation Letters, 6(4), 274–279. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263x.2012.00309.x
30. Muradian, R., Corbera, E., Pascual, U., et al. (2010). Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 69(6), 1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
31. Nguyen, M. D., Ancev, T., & Randall, A. (2020). Forest governance and economic values of forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 97, 103297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.028
32. Nguyen, M. D., Do Thi, D. & Do Thi, T. H. (2021). Community-based payment for forest ecosystem services: A study in Muong Cha district, Dien Bien province. Journal of Economics and Development, 291(2), 45-55.
33. Nguyen, M. D., Ha, Q. D., Do Thi, D., et al. (2020). Payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam: theories, practices, lessons learnt and policy implimentation in Vietnam (Vietnamese). Economic Studies, 11(510), 13-25.
34. Nilsson, D., Baxter, G., Butler, J. R. A., et al. (2016). How do community-based conservation programs in developing countries change human behaviour? A realist synthesis. Biological Conservation, 200, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.020
35. Ostrom, E. (2005). Self-governance and forest resources. Terracotta Reader: A Market Approach to the Environment, 131-154.
36. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(39), 15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702288104
37. Ostrom, E. (2009). A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133
38. Phan, T. H. D., Brouwer, R., Hoang, L. P., & Davidson, M. D. (2017). A comparative study of transaction costs of payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Forest Policy and Economics, 80, 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.017
39. Pirard, R. (2012). Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: A lexicon. Environmental Science & Policy, 19, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.02.001
40. Rezaei-Moghaddam, K., Vatankhah, N., & Ajili, A. (2020). Adoption of pro-environmental behaviors among farmers: application of Value–Belief–Norm theory. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 7(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40538-019-0174-z
41. Salzman, J., Bennett, G., Carroll, N., et al. (2018). The global status and trends of payments for ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 136. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0033-0
42. Secco, L., Da Re, R., Pettenella, D. M., & Gatto, P. (2014). Why and how to measure forest governance at local level: A set of indicators. Forest Policy and Economics, 49, 57-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.07.006
43. Suhardiman, D., Wichelns, D., Lestrelin, G., & Hoanh, C. T. (2013). Payments for ecosystem services in Vietnam: Market-based incentives or state control of resources? Ecosystem Services, 5, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.001
44. Thakkar, J. J. (2020). Structural equation modelling: Springer Singapore.
45. Thuy, P. T., Bennett, K., Vu, T. P., et al. (2013). Payments for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam: From policy to practice. Retrieved from Indonesia.
46. Thuy, P. T., Chau, N. H., Chi, D. T. L., et al. (2020). The politics of numbers and additionality governing the national Payment for Forest ecosystem services scheme in Vietnam: A case study from Son La province. Forest & Society, 4(2), 379-404. https://doi.org/10.24259/fs.v4i2.10891
47. To, P., & Dressler, W. (2019). Rethinking ‘Success’: The politics of payment for forest ecosystem services in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 81, 582-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.010
48. Tran, T. T. H., Zeller, M., & Suhardiman, D. (2016). Payments for ecosystem services in Hoa Binh province, Vietnam: An institutional analysis. Ecosystem Services, 22, 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.10.001
49. Wunder, S. (2008). Payments for environmental services and the poor: concepts and preliminary evidence. Environment and Development Economics, 13(03), 279-297. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x08004282
50. Wunder, S. (2015). Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 117, 234-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.08.016
51. Wunder, S., Brouwer, R., Engel, S., et al. (2018). From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services. Nature Sustainability, 1(3), 145-150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0036-x
52. Zellner, A., & Theil, H. (1962). Three-stage least squares: simultaneous estimation of simultaneous equations. Econometrica, 30, 54–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911287