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.

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

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

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

Ashley, C., & Carney, D. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods: Lessons from early experience (Vol. 7): Department for International Development London.

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

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

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

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

CEMA, & GSO. (2020). Results of the Survey on the Social-Economic status of 53 ethnic minority groups in 2019. Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House.

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

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

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

FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020: Main Report. Rome.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

GSO. (2021). Statistic Yeabook of Vietnam 2020. Hanoi: Statistical Publishing House.

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

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

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

MARD. (2021). Decree No. 1558/QĐ-BNN-TCLN on The Announcement of the national status of forest in 2020. Hanoi.

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

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

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

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis (Vol. 1): Island Press Washington, DC.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

Ostrom, E. (2005). Self-governance and forest resources. Terracotta Reader: A Market Approach to the Environment, 131-154.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thakkar, J. J. (2020). Structural equation modelling: Springer Singapore.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zellner, A., & Theil, H. (1962). Three-stage least squares: simultaneous estimation of simultaneous equations. Econometrica, 30, 54–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1911287