The present study aimed to evaluate the effects of physical activities on human health in forests in countryside and rural areas. The test experiment was conducted in a countryside forest, whereas the controlled experiment was conducted in an urban area where the study participants resided. A total of 22 participants (aged 20.9 ± 1.3 years) were evaluated in this study. Heart rate variability and salivary cortisol level were used as indices of physiological conditions, and semantic differential method, profile of mood states (POMS), and state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI) were used to evaluate the participants’ emotional states. The participants were asked to walk around forest and urban areas for 15 min. The results were as follows. As compared to the urban area, in the forest area, (1) the power of the high-frequency (HF) component of the heart rate variability (HRV) was significantly higher; (2) low-frequency (LF)/(LF + HF) was significantly lower; (3) salivary cortisol level was significantly lower; (4) the participants felt more comfortable, natural, relaxed, and less anxious and showed higher levels of positive emotions and lower levels of negative emotions. Consequently, walking in the forest area induces relaxing short-term physiological and psychological effects on young people living in urban areas.
Many bamboo species are well suited for agroforestry as they are more versatile and rapidly renewable than trees. Bamboo is an important income source for rural villagers around the world, especially in tropical developing countries, such as Lao PDR (Lao People’s Democratic Republic). This study applied a value chain approach to compare potential incomes from different bamboo utilization models: (1) existing model of selling semi-processed raw materials (bamboo splits), and (2) new model of producing handcraft products locally. Using a rural village in eastern Lao PDR (Nongboua village in Vientiane Capital province) as a case study, we provided empirical assessments of two bamboo value chains. Based on interviews with the villagers and stakeholders and government statistical data from 2017 to 2019, existing and new bamboo production chains were evaluated. In the existing value chain, the final products, bamboo chopsticks, are worth $6.74/kg. The value chain starts with bamboo harvesting, collection, and management, which are done by villagers in Lao PDR and taxed by the Lao PDR government. Bamboo splits are then transported to Vietnam to make the final products to sell. Local villagers received only 4.9% of the total value. The new bamboo handicraft model could produce 9 bamboo cups and 60 medals from one bamboo stem worth $52.6–61.7 and $343.8. In this value chain, bamboo harvesting, management, and processing to final products are done by villagers. The handcrafts were collected by traders to be sold at souvenir shops. Local villagers could capture 29.4%–42.3% of the total values. Producing bamboo cup and medal could generate 1.12–2.17 and 234.8–244.6 times higher income for villagers per labor hour and per bamboo stem, respectively, and allow them to use more bamboo resource than producing bamboo splits to export to Vietnam. If applied to other rural areas in Lao PDR, the new bamboo product model for handicrafts can be a better income source for local villagers in Lao PDR with sustainable use of bamboo resources than the existing model. However, it requires extensive bamboo handicrafts training over a year. Although alternative uses of bamboo would be different depending on social, economic, and market contexts, the value chain analysis demonstrated in this study can be applied elsewhere to increase local retention of economic values generated from agroforestry.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.