Sustainable Assets and Strategies Affecting the Forestry Household Income: Empirical Evidence from South Korea

Abstract

This study aims to identify the factors determining the forestry household income in South Korea. An empirical analysis was conducted on the Korea Forest Service’s 3-year-panel data. Korea Forest Service is an institution responsible for the sustainable management of South Korea’s forest lands. In the study, the hypothesized factors determining the forestry household income are classified into four types of assets and three types of livelihood strategies. The forestry household income (FHI) is divided into three elements: forestry income (FI), non-forestry income (NFI), and transfer income (TI). The influence of household assets and livelihood strategies on each income were also assessed. A random effect model was used as a statistical analysis of the three-year data of 979 forestry households. Based on the analysis, we found that household head’s age, household head’s labor capacity, savings, business type, cultivated land size, and region are significantly associated with FHI. While FI was influenced by labor capacity, cultivated land size, business type, forestry business portfolio, and region, NFI was determined by household head’s age, household head’s gender, forestry business portfolio, and savings. TI was affected by household head’s age, household head’s education level, forestry business portfolio, savings, and region. The effect sizes and directions varied across different types of income (FHI, FI, NFI, and TI). The findings showed that South Korea forestry was highly dependent on sustainable assets and livelihood strategies. Based on our findings, we expect the effectiveness of forest policies in increasing the forestry household income would differ depending on the source of each income. The results of this study draw attention to the need for an income support policy which considers the characteristics of household assets and livelihood strategies in order to enhance FHI in South Korea.

Willingness to Pay for Eco-Labeled Food in Forests: Integrated View from South Korea

“…Suppliers are obliged to pay the certification fee for ELF [10]. Most costs will be burdensome for small forest product providers [7]. However, since an ELF can contribute to sustainability, it is worth looking at how certification is delivered to buyers.…”

“…ELF providers may be reluctant to produce ELFs because of the cost of certification. However, if consumers are fully aware of this and intend to purchase, the marketability will require a long-term investment [7,30]. In other words, from a supplier's perspective, the WTP should come up with some solutions to the uncertainty about certification.…”

“…Moreover, while forest products are produced with higher production costs than the agricultural products, forest product producers receive a lower income than agricultural product producers. Indeed, the average income level of forestry households is lower than that of the primary industry group and urbanites [7].…”

Asset Analysis and Sustainable Strategies for Forest Management: a Case Study of the Organic Forest Farmer Group and the Citarum Watershed Upstream Farmer Group

“…Previous research from Jang-Hwan, Jo et al (2019) conducted research on assets and strategies in managing sustainable forests in South Korea, with the results of research that the correct use of assets and good strategies will have an influence on the income of surrounding communities / Forest Farmer Groups. Some of the aspects of the study are Household Income from Forestry, Income from Forests and Non-Forest Income.…”

Are Minority Forest Farmers Willing to Participate in Forest Man-Agement? Evidence from the Minority Regions of Southwest China

“…Therefore, foreign scholars have gradually started to focus on the research on forest landowners' willingness [8][9][10][11] and behavior [12][13][14][15] to engage in forest management. Price (1997) concluded that factors such as forest land resource endowment and individual farmers' characteristics have a certain degree of influence on the transformation of management behavior and willingness through the forestry production efficiency in the UK [16]; Viitale (1998) found that reducing the input to public benefit forests inputs can appropriately change the generally low technical efficiency of production [17]; Denis J (2011) suggested the importance of policy for developing forestry [18]; Thant (2011) studied the role and influence of willingness and behavior of 200 households in Myanmar on achieving sustainable forestry [19]; Goyke et al (2019) examined the role and influence of the willingness and behavior of 200 households in Myanmar on achieving sustainable forestry through a study of selected US Southern African American forest landowners, they found that professional advice had the greatest degree of influence on forest landowners' participation in forest management behavior [20]; Jang-Hwan conducted a statistical analysis based on panel data from sustainable forest land management institutions in Korea and found that a number of elements related to the livelihood strategy level influenced farm household forestry income to varying degrees, and thus will also affect the willingness to engage in forest management and the sustainability of forestry [21].…”