Resource Use Dynamics and Land-Cover Change in Ang Nhai Village and Phou Phanang National Reserve Forest, Lao PDR

This study integrated aerial photographs from 1952, 1981, and 1998, and a satellite image from 2000 with oral histories and socioeconomic surveys to assess changes in forest and land cover in Ang Nhai village, Laos. The study documents the history of resource use and changes in household access to resources in the village. Three distinctive trends were observed in terms of forest and land cover—forest degradation, deforestation, and regeneration. Project results suggest that land and forest cover change dynamically under different circumstances. The case study also points out that integration into the market economy can induce intensification of unused lowland areas, while removing pressures from upland areas previously used for supplementing agricultural production. In addition, the creation of a national reserve forest to restrict local access and forest use was an ineffective tool for regulating encroachment and logging activities.     

From food to pest: Conversion factors determine switches between ecosystem services and disservices

Ecosystem research focuses on goods and services, thereby ascribing beneficial values to the ecosystems. Depending on the context, however, outputs from ecosystems can be both positive and negative. We examined how provisioning services of wild animals and plants can switch between being services and disservices. We studied agricultural communities in Laos to illustrate when and why these switches take place. Government restrictions on land use combined with economic and cultural changes have created perceptions of rodents and plants as problem species in some communities. In other communities that are maintaining shifting cultivation practices, the very same taxa were perceived as beneficial. We propose conversion factors that in a given context can determine where an individual taxon is located along a spectrum from ecosystem service to disservice, when, and for whom. We argue that the omission of disservices in ecosystem service accounts may lead governments to direct investments at inappropriate targets.