Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aims to answer questions about the importance and utilization of wetland provisioning ecosystem services (ES) in the disturbed southernmost provinces of Thailand, calling for the need for sustainable wetland management. Generally, natural resources management in the unrest area has been neglected because security-related policies have usually received higher priority. The study surveyed a sample of 328 households to explore the types and importance of provisioning wetland ES that have value to the local people. The statistics used to analyze data are percentage, mean, standard deviation, and calculation of the value of provisioning ES. Quantitative data were presented to a participatory workshop of 22 stakeholders to explore guidelines for wetland management. The results indicate that wetland plays a vital role in the livelihood of the local community by providing a variety of provisioning ES. Nine of the 13 ES addressed in the study were perceived as important to very important by the local people. Based on the guidelines provided by the stakeholders, an initial strategy has been formulated in the study.

Keywords

wetlands ecosystem services value southernmost politically unstable

Introduction

Wetlands are natural ecosystems important in fulfilling human well-being and poverty eradication (Barbier, 2011; Ramsar Convention Secretariat, 2016; Rebelo, McCartney, & Finlayson, 2010; Sellamuttu et al., 2012). They provide all four types of ecosystem services (ES): provisioning such as food (Das, Behera, & Mishra, 2015; Gosling, Shackleton, & Gambiza, 2017; Köbbing, Beckmann, Thevs, Peng, & Zerbe, 2016; Mehvar, Filatova, Sarker, Dastgheib, & Ranasinghe, 2019; Merriman et al., 2018; Walker, 2019), fresh water (Prasada, Dhamira, & Masyhuri, 2019; Turyahabwe, Kakuru, Tweheyo, & Tumusiime, 2013), raw material (Mehvar et al., 2019); regulating such as wastewater treatment and natural disaster prevention (Liu, Xu, Yue, Teng, & Hu, 2018; Liu et al., 2019; Liu, Zhao, et al., 2018; Zhu, Ryan, & Gao, 2019), pollination (Vickruck, Best, Gavin, Devries, & Galpern, 2019), habitat for plant and animal species (Clarkson, Ausseil, & Gerbeaux, 2018; Sun, Zhen, & Giashuddin Miah, 2017), and climate regulation (Merriman & Murata, 2016); cultural services such as tourism and recreation (Do, 2019; Ondiek, Kitaka, & Oduor, 2016; Paudyal, Baral, & Keenan, 2018); and supporting services such as nutrient cycling (Hong, Zhang, Ma, Gu, & Lee, 2019).

Despite their many services, the current situation regarding wetlands around the world is one of the decline and deterioration. Between 1970 and 2015, both inland and coastal wetland areas decreased by about 35% (Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, 2018), particularly in developing countries (Chaikumbung, Doucouliagos, & Scarborough, 2019). In Thailand, wetlands covered an area of 36,616 km² or 7.5% of the country area. Of these, 44.9% were freshwater sources and 55.1% were coastal areas (Lertsahakul et al., 2010). The decline and degradation of these wetlands ultimately affect human well-being (Kumar et al., 2011). The need for sustainable management of wetlands is thus crucial to ensure a regular flow of the services to meet human needs.

The southernmost provinces of Thailand including Pattani, Yala, Narathiwat provinces, and some parts of Songkhla province have been in a state of unrest for 15 years (Benharoon & Binsaleh, 2013; Binsaleh & Binsaleh, 2013). There are complex causes, including forced assimilation to the national Thai identity, frictions between government policies and religious beliefs, systemic discrimination in local governance, political marginalization, abuses of the local population by security forces and state officials, and pressures to achieve autonomy (Benharoon, 2013; Burke, Tweedie, & Poocharoen, 2013; Engvall & Andersson, 2014; Jampaklay, Ford, & Chamratrithirong, 2017). This long-standing unrest has affected the social and economic quality of life, as people feel frightened and unsafe (Benharoon, 2013; Benharoon & Binsaleh, 2013; Vajirakachorn, 2012; Wichaidit, Songwathana, Balthip, & Woods, 2019), and their income per capita is much lower than in neighboring provinces (Burke et al., 2013). As peacebuilding policy has been given the highest priority, attention to the management of natural resources and environment has been minimal. Reviews of research over the past 5 years indicates that research has focused more on education (e.g., Awal, Jaafar, Mis, & Lateh, 2014; Churngchow & Sinprajukpol, 2016; Haruthaithanasan, 2018; Kritpracha, Kaosaiyaporn, & Atisabda, 2015; Mudor & Bunyarit, 2013; Niemted, 2016), social and economic well-being (Benharoon, 2013; Jaruma, 2013; Laeheem & Boonprakarn, 2017; Yanya, Abdul-Hakim, & Abdul-Razak, 2013), and health (Boonderm et al., 2017; Mosamae, Neamsuvan, Asae, Bensulong, & Tuwaemaengae, 2012; Neamsuvan, Kama, Salaemae, Leesen, & Waedueramae, 2015). In contrast, research on local natural resources management has been sparse, with a focus on marine and coastal resources (Hajisamae, 2009; Hajisamae, Yeesin, & Chaimongkol, 2006; Thampanya, Vermaat, Sinsakul, & Panapitukkul, 2006). However, people there still depend greatly on agriculture (Bundhuwong, 2013) which in turn relies strongly on ES provided by natural systems. Resource management has been given lower priority because people have had to survive in the midst of the complex conditions of the area.

Pru Lan Kwai (PLK) is a unique and significant wetland situated in two provinces in the southernmost part of Thailand. Up to the present, the literature on PLK and ES management is still extremely limited. A study by Makaraphirom et al. (2018) in the Saiburi watershed, of which PLK is part, points out that there are many problems of resource management and complex issues in the unrest areas, for example, deforestation and wildlife exploitation for commercial purposes, repeated floods and drought, soil erosion and landslides, inefficient irrigation systems, river mouth excavation, coastal erosion, and illegal fishing equipment. For the PLK itself, however, there is a serious lack of basic information such as the amount of water surface, runoff, groundwater, water quality, soil, plant species, species composition, or economic value. This is despite the importance of identifying ES and community perceptions of their value as an important step in providing decision support for formulating effective policies and environmental practice guidelines (Garrido, Elbakidze, & Angelstam, 2017). De Groot, Stuip, Finlayson, and Davidson (2006) have underlined the importance of assessing the significance of wetlands in relation to livelihoods of people in the relevant area.

Exploring the use and management of wetland ES to create improved well-being and enhanced economic security should help to relieve stress and difficulties experienced by local people in the unrest area if it can sustainably support their livelihoods in terms of food security, higher income, better quality of life, and lower risk of natural disaster, thus reducing pressure on their insecure situation. As an initial step aimed at raising awareness of the value of ES associated with PLK, this study has addressed three key questions: (a) what are the benefits of PLK ES to local communities? (b) in what way is the wetland important to the local people? and (c) what are the stakeholders’ proposed guidelines for wetland management? This research should provide important information on wetland services for policy makers and stakeholders and establish a basis for appropriate and sustainable wetland management approaches in the future.

Methods

Study Area

PLK is a freshwater wetland ecosystem with geographic coordinates at 6°34′49.77″ N, 101°26′33.75″E. It is one of the important wetland ecosystems of the Saiburi river basin in the three southern border provinces of Thailand (Figure 1). It covers an area of approximately 2,400 ha (Avae, 2004) in two provinces: Pattani (Talo Mana Subdistrict, Nam Dam Subdistrict, and Pa Ku Subdistrict in Thung Yang Dang District) and Yala (Wang Phaya Subdistrict and Tha Thong Subdistrict in Raman District). It is a natural freshwater ecosystem in a pan basin surrounded by mountains, receiving large flows of water from the surrounding mountains and the Saiburi river, draining into the Gulf of Thailand. The average depth of water is about 1 to 3 m. The climate is tropical monsoon. The total 2,400 ha contains various natural ecosystems such as lake, marsh, canals, grassland, and swamp forest, and man-made ecosystem such as paddy field. However, a major part of the wetland is still natural with some parts of it are used by local people for crops. The wetland is home to many wild species, for example, animals such as the little cormorant (Microcarbo niger), gray heron (Ardea cinerea), and lesser coucal (Centropus bengalensis); perennial plants including mile a minute (Mikania cordata), malabar gooseberry (Melastoma malabathricum), jambolan plum (Syzygium cumini), and paperbark tree (Melaleuca quinquenervia); and water plants, including water primrose (Ludwigia hyssopifolia), catathea (Schumannianthus dichotomous (Roxb.) Gagnep), and water clover (Marsilea crenata).

Figure 1.

Map of the PLK wetland showing its location in Saiburi river basin, southern border provinces (Pattani, Yala, and Narathiwat) of Thailand.

Data Collection and Sampling

This study used both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The population for quantitative study was the people living in areas adjacent to the PLK wetland area in Tha Thong Subdistrict and Wang Phaya Subdistrict, Raman District, Yala Province and Paku Subdistrict, Nam Dam Subdistrict and Talo Mana Subdistrict, Thung Yang Dang District, and Pattani Province, totaling 9,661 persons or 1,812 households in December 2017 (Namdam Subdistrict Administrative Organization, 2014; Paku Subdistrict Administrative Organization, 2016; Talo Maena Subdistrict Administrative Organization, 2014; Tha Thong Subdistrict Administrative Organization, 2015; Wang Phaya Subdistrict Administrative Organization, 2014). The calculated sample was 328 households. The respondents were either the head of the household or a representative of the family who is 20 years old or more. All participants provided informed consent and whether the consent was written or verbal. A stratified random sampling was used to determine the number of sampled households in each subdistrict, allowing each community to have equal representation, followed by systematic random sampling to select the households in each subdistrict.

The questionnaire was created by the researchers, with some questions on wetland ES adapted from Chuwew et al. (2014) to make them suitable in the context of the area. The questionnaire contains five main parts: demographic information on the respondent, socioeconomic information on the household, utilization of ES, perception of the respondent on the importance of the ES and natural resources (in Likert-type scale), and open-ended suggestions for the management of PLK wetland. The questionnaire was written in Thai. However, data were collected by researchers who speak both Thai and the local language of Malay between October 2017 and March 2018.

A participatory workshop was organized to conduct a qualitative study of people’s perceptions and ideas for the formulation of guidelines regarding the management of ES provided by the wetland. The participants were selected using criteria of stakeholders determination based on the systematic consideration model by Masawat, Roongtawanreongsri, and Sawangchote (2017). The criteria cover four considerations: benefits: both direct and indirect benefits that they received from the wetland, impact: the severity of environmental impact and impact on quality of life from the change of the wetland, degree of participation: level of participation in the management or protection of the wetland, and the level of the respondent’s importance and influence on other community people (further details appear in the cited literature). Twenty-two representatives of stakeholders met the criteria and participated in the workshop. All writings produced by participants, such as large sheets of paper recording participant inputs, were collected, discussed under the guidance of four cofacilitators and audio-recorded.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed according to the research questions and grouped into three data sets. First, the data on provisioning services utilization and benefits were analyzed using a descriptive analysis and value estimation. The unit of quantity of the services used is reported in kilograms, with the exception of cattle which is reported in number. The benefit of each service was calculated using the market price of the local market, allowing the value of the total benefit of sample households to be calculated. Second, the data on the perception of local people regarding the importance of natural resources in PLK wetland were represented on a 5-point Likert-type scale so that a total score, mean score, and percentage for the scale items could be calculated. The five possible scores of the scale were defined as follows: very important (4.51–5.00), important (3.51–4.50), moderately important (2.51–3.50), slightly important (1.51–2.50), and not important (1.00–1.50). Finally, data on the suggested guidelines for wetland ES management were compared with the information recorded in the workshop and then verified by the workshop cofacilitator.

Results

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Sampled Households

Among 328 sampled households living in 10 communities around the swamp forest, the majority of the respondents were females (n = 201; 61%), 48 years old on average (±15), with Islamic belief (n = 291; 89%), had obtained education lower than bachelor’s degree (n = 305; 93%), and lived in the community for more than 40 years (±17). The average number of household members was five (±2). The average distance from the house to the wetland was 2.6 km (±1.3). Fifty-six percent of the respondents stated that their main occupation was farmer (n = 185; 56%). The second most reported occupation was labor (n = 55; 17%). In addition, 77% stated that they did not have a second income (n = 252), thus relying solely from their main occupation. The average monthly income of households was US$276 (±198), and the average expenditure was US$181 (±165). Legally, the land around the PLK should not be owned by people as it belongs to the government, yet a small proportion of the respondents (n = 30; 9%) reported that they owned an average of 0.16 to 0.80 ha.

Utilization of Provisioning ES by Local Households

The respondents’ report of the usage could be divided into six categories: (a) fishing, which refers to all kinds of aquatic animals in the wetland; (b) livestock, which included cows, buffaloes, ducks, goats, and sheep; (c) natural product gathering, including mushroom (Boletus griseipurpureus Corner), firewood, teal (Callonetta leucophrys), and herb; (d) short-term crop production, that is, seasonal crops such as watermelon, corn, chili, and cucumber; (e) receiving water from the wetland to grow rice; and (f) monoculture crops of rubber and oil palm. The categorization of the last two services takes after Feurer et al. (2019) and Suwarno, Hein, and Sumarga (2016).

The number of households, the proportion, and the value of the uses are given as an overview in Table 1. From 328 households which were the sample of this survey, fishing gained the highest proportion (n = 76; 23.3%) with the average annual value of US$1,433, followed by livestock (n = 65; 19.8%). However, livestock value of use was the highest, worth US$20,044 per year. The proportion of households gathering natural products was close to the livestock, yet with much lower value (n = 59; 17.9%, US$291 per year). The remaining uses were similarly low in proportion including short-term crop production (n = 21; 6.4%, US$2,482 per year), rice farming (n = 15; 4.6%, US$639 per year), and monoculture crops from rubber and oil palm (n = 10; 3.0%, US$8,626 per year). In total, there were 246 households (75%) using provisioning ES from the PLK wetland area and generating the total market value of US$33,515 per year.

Table 1.

Utilization of Provisioning ES and Market Value From the Sample of 328 Households in 2018.

Provisioning ES	No. of households	%	Total annual value (in US$)
Total households surveyed (sample)	328	100	—
Fishing	76	23.3	1,433
Livestock	65	19.8	20,044
Gathering of the natural products	59	17.9	291
Short-term crop production	21	6.4	2,482
Rice farming	15	4.6	639
Monoculture crops	10	3.0	8,626
Total household that used ES	246	75	33,515
Total household that did not use ES	82	25	—

Note. 1 US$ = 31.88 THB at the time of data collection. ES = ecosystem services.

Fishing

Fishing proved to be an important use of ES of the PLK wetland, as the proportion of households was the highest, compared with other ES. It is noted, however, that not everyone can make use of fishery due to the required skills, expertise, and fishing gear such as boats and nets. Forty-one species of fish and aquatic animals were caught by the households, with the amount varying based on fishing gear and fishing season. Generally, the main fishing season was considered to be during flooding or the rainy season between October and December. The total amount caught was divided for household consumption (78%), for sale at local market (21%), and for sharing (1%). The top 10 most caught fish species (71%) were snakehead fish (Channa striata), walking catfish (Clarias batrachus), gray featherback (Notopterus notopterus), common silver carb (Barbonymus gonionotus), Burmese trout (Family Cyprinidae), butter catfish (Ompok krattensis), small scale mud carp (Cirrhina microlepis), naked catfishes (Hemibagrus filamentous), beardless barb (Cyclocheilichthys apogon), and striped tiger leaffish (Pristolepis fasciata), respectively. The value of fisheries accounted for 0.58% of the average annual income of the fishing households. Table 2 presents more detail of each species’ total catch and distribution.

Table 2.

Proportion of Provisioning Ecosystem Service Utilization in 2018.

Provisioning ecosystem services	%^a	Quantity of products used/produced
		Total	For household consumption		For selling		For sharing
		Total	Quantity	%	Quantity	%	Quantity	%
1. Fishing		(Unit: kg/year)
A. 10 species of fish that most households catch	71	513	398	78	109	21	6	1
Snakehead fish (Channa striata)	11	87	66	76	21	24	0	0
Walking catfish (Clarias batrachus)	10	73	55	75	18	25	0	0
Gray featherback (Notopterus notopterus)	8	52	44	85	8	15	0	0
Common silver carb (Barbonymus gonionotus)	8	65	51	78	8	12	6	9
Burmese trout (F. Cyprinidae)	7	51	43	84	8	16	0	0
Butter catfish (Ompok krattensis)	6	40	36	90	4	10	0	0
Small scale mud carp (Cirrhina microlepis)	6	42	31	74	11	26	0	0
Naked catfishes (Hemibagrus filamentous)	5	45	30	67	15	33	0	0
Beardless barb (Cyclocheilichthys apogon)	5	34	23	68	11	32	0	0
Striped tiger leaffish (Pristolepis fascia)	4	24	19	79	5	21	0	0
B. Other types of fish (31 types) households catch	29	212	169	80	41	19	2	1
Total	100	725	567	78	150	21	8	1
2. Livestock	(Unit: number of animals/year)
Cow	33	45	0	0	45	100	0	0
Buffalo	6	8	0	0	8	100	0	0
Duck	53	72	0	0	72	100	0	0
Goat	4	5	0	0	5	100	0	0
Sheep	4	5	0	0	5	100	0	0
Total	100	135	—	—	—	—	—	—
3. Natural product gathering	(Unit: kg/yr)
Mushroom (Boletus griseipurpureus Corner)	81	138	46	33	83	60	9	7
Firewood	14	90	90	100	0	0	0	0
Teal (Callonetta leucophrys)	3	3	3	100	0	0	0	0
Herb	2	20	20	100	0	0	0	0
Total	100	251	—	—	—	—	—	—
4. Short-term crop production	(Unit: kg/year)
Watermelon	57	6,250	370	6	5,800	93	80	1
Corn	24	260	90	35	150	58	20	8
Chili	10	70	20	29	50	71	0	0
Cucumber	9	110	70	64	40	36	0	0
Total	100	6,690	550	8	6,040	90	100	1
5. Rice farming	(Unit: kg/year)
Rice farming	100	1,630	1,305	80	275	17	50	3
Total	100	1,630	1,305	80	275	17	50	3
6. Monoculture crops	(Unit: kg/yr)
Rubber	90	18,214	0	0	18,214	100	0	0
Oil palm	10	10,000	0	0	10,000	100	0	0
Total	100	28,214	0	0	28,214	100	0	0

^aThe percentage is calculated from the total in each group of service.

Livestock

Raising cows, buffaloes, goats, and sheep in the PLK wetland still follows a traditional unique culture. In the morning, owners let the animals graze freely in the wetland and drive them back into pens in the evening while counting and exploring the overall health condition of each animal. The animals were considered an asset that could be readily sold in time of a family’s urgent need for cash. Ducks were raised near the house not in the wetland area. The five kinds of animals were particularly connected to the Muslim culture, which consumes specific types of meat following religious practice. Thus, raising pigs was found only among a few Buddhist households in the area. Livestock accounts for 12.06% of the average household annual income of those who raised livestock.

Gathering of the natural products

Natural products in the PLK wetland varied due to seasons. Despite that, there were only four types of products reported to be collected during the survey. Mushrooms, collected the most, were used for sale (60%) rather than household consumption. The other three remaining products, firewood, teal, and herbs, were used solely for household consumption. This type of use was significant in that it eased the household from expenses in terms of fuel, food, and natural medicines. The value obtained from the products accounted for 0.14% of the average income of the households that collected natural products.

Short-term crop production

Some local households produced extra income by cultivating short-term crops on the grassland area of the PLK. Most of the crops are located in Talo Mana, Nam Dam and Pa Ku Subdistrict, Thung Yang Dang District, and Pattani Province. Short-term crops lasted for no longer than 6 months, from planting until harvesting. The cultivation usually starts after the flood season, at the end of January until June. There were four types of cultivated plants: watermelon, corn, chili, and cucumber. The products were used mainly for sale (90%), while some were used for household consumption (8%) and only slightly for giving or sharing with neighbors (2%). The value derived from short-term crop production accounts for 4.16% of the average household income of the short-term crop production households.

Rice farming

Rice farming relies heavily on natural water resources from a swamp in the PLK wetland. Farmers brought a fast-growing rice variety from other places to grow there. Rice planting starts around June every year. The farming process includes field preparation, plowing, sowing, seedling, transplanting, pest and weed control, harvesting, and storing. Rice grain was mostly (80%) stored for household consumption, while 17% was sold, and only a little (3%) was shared. This is because rice is the main food staple of every household. The value derived from rice farming accounts for 1.28% of the average household income of the rice farming households.

Monoculture crops

Two popular crops planted near PLK wetland were rubber and oil palm. They receive provisioning ES benefit because of their reliance on soil and water resource from the PLK. Plantation activities have not existed as long as other service uses, going back about 15 to 20 years. Data from the survey showed that of the crops available, rubber proved to be the major plant preferred (90%). Among the households that planted monoculture crops, the value derived from this activity accounted for 19.34% of the average income. Monoculture has changed the original land type from grassland, rice fields, and area near the wetland edge to rubber and oil palm plantation, with various negative effects on flows of ES.

Table 3 summarizes the contribution of the value of ES to the total household income. The contribution ranges from 0.14% (gathering of the natural products) to 19.34% (monoculture crops), while Table 4 summarizes the value of all uses with the contribution to the wetland area. We calculated it in two levels: the first is in the area of specific habitat where the service was drawn, and the second is in the total PLK area. The total value per hectare of PLK wetland was US$13.96. This does not account for other ES that have not been quantified and valued, that is, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services.

Table 3.

Percentage of the Income From Provisioning ES to the Total Household Income of the Households That Utilize the Particular ES.

Provisioning ES (number of households)	Average annual income of the households in that ES group (US$)	Average annual value of ES (US$)	Percentage of the ES value to the total household income in that ES group
Total value from the use of ES = US$33,515
Fishing (76)	3,227	19	0.58
Livestock (65)	2,556	308	12.06
Gathering of the natural products (59)	3,604	4.93	0.14
Short-term crop production (21)	2,838	118	4.16
Rice farming (15)	3,338	43	1.28
Monoculture crops (10)	4,460	863	19.34
Did not use ES (82)

Note. ES = ecosystem services.

Table 4.

Overall Value Estimation of the Provisioning Ecosystem Services per Area of Habitats and Total Area.

ES	Habitat	Total habitat area (ha)	Total value of the service (US$)	Value per hectare of thehabitat area (US$/ha of corresponding habitat)	Value per hectare of the total wetland area (US$/ha of PLK)
Fishing	Freshwater pond, streams, and canals	800	1,433.44	1.79	0.60
Livestock	Grassland	400	20,043.79	50.11	8.35
Gathering of the natural products	Swamp and scrub forest	320	290.97	0.91	0.12
Short-term crop production	Paddy field	320	2,481.81	7.76	1.03
Rice farming	Grassland	320	639.12	2.00	0.27
Monoculture crops	Grassland	240	8,625.97	35.94	3.59
Total PLK wetland		2,400	33,515.09	—	13.96

Note. This is only the minimum value of the wetland as there are still other ecosystem services that were not accounted for. PLK = Pru Lan Kwai.

Perception on the Importance of ES and Natural Resources in the PLK

From the total of 13 natural resources listed in the questionnaire, 7 were perceived as very important, 2 as important, and 4 as moderately important (Table 5). The very important services included freshwater, fish production, nature state of the wetland, its beauty, the surrounding area, trees, and other aquatic animals. Expectedly, resources that were sources for food, income, and daily activity received a high importance score. Significantly, the respondents listed the nature and beauty of the wetland as very important too. No resource was perceived to be only slightly important or not important. Further interviews revealed the views, as in the quote later. Note that the interview was in Malay and was translated verbatim to English by the researchers.

Table 5.

Perceptions on the Importance of Natural Resources in the Wetland.

Natural resources in the PLK	Mean	SD	Importance level
Survey from 328 respondents
1. Freshwater	4.17	0.737	Very important
2. Fish production	4.15	0.713	Very important
3. Nature of the wetland	3.93	0.909	Very important
4. The beauty of the wetland	3.89	0.860	Very important
5. The area around the wetland	3.86	0.871	Very important
6. Trees	3.77	0.950	Very important
7. Other aquatic animals	3.60	0.710	Very important
8. Grass (the area around the wetland)	3.53	0.898	Important
9. Mushroom	3.43	0.875	Important
10. Birds	3.34	0.835	Moderately important
11. Wild animals	3.19	0.851	Moderately important
12. Water plants	3.10	1.001	Moderately important
13. Various insects	3.04	0.904	Moderately important
Average	3.615	0.854	Very important

Note. PLK = Pru Lan Kwai; SD = standard deviation.

I have been fishing in the wetland for almost 30 years and seen all the changes during this time. Phru Lan Kwai is very significant to me and my family. I can fish all year round to support household consumption and sell for extra income although the catch has been decreased for the past years. However, if there is no water in the PLK, and no fish, it will be tough for me and my family.

The nature in the PLK used to be so fertile, but not anymore. I have raised livestock here since I started with only 2 cows. Now, I have more than 20 cows. The grassland around the PLK is the feeding ground for the animals, but is difficult for them in the flood season. I come to check them every evening, consider it a good exercise too.

Guidelines for the Management of Wetland Provisioning ES

Guidelines were suggested by the stakeholders participating in the workshop. They were presented with information describing the current circumstances of the wetland and general principles of wise natural resource management. The participants collaborated diligently to discuss, explore, and finally suggest guidelines for managing the use of PLK provisioning ES. As seen in Table 6, the suggested guidelines closely align with sustainable resource management practices, with participants aiming to make the resources available as long as possible. The guidelines comprise a mixture of controlling, supporting, and promoting measures.

Table 6.

Stakeholder’s Suggested Guidelines for the Management of Provisioning Ecosystem Services in PLK Wetland.

PLK habitats	Problems/current situations	Suggested management guidelines
Overall ecosystems	Decrease in natural area due to land use changes Unsustainable practices in and around the PLK: use of chemicals in crop cultivation, use of water unlimitedly, and waste discard from agriculture without proper treatment	A clear boundary of the wetland should be revisited and formally announced, clearly define public areas and private areas. Adjacent areas around the wetland should be zoned for land use. Set up rules for the use of wetlands such as determining the size of land that can be used for farming in each household. Employ agricultural practices that do not impact the wetland quality.
Freshwater ecosystems	Loss of fish and aquatic animal species Declining fish catch Degradation and loss of fish and aquatic animals habitat	Academic and fishermen should determine: gear restrictions, for example, a meshsize not smaller than 2 cm be designated to capture mature individuals, and prohibition of electric shock season restriction, particularly during spawning season from May to August Fishermen should agree to release fish too smallback to the water. Stakeholders should determine protected areas or habitats within the wetland that should not be fished.
Grassland	Reduction of pasture area due to land use changes No specific boundary for livestock feeding	Stock owners should not allow animals to graze freely, rather restriction should be set up as where and how many animals can graze in the wetland. Stock owners should organize a collaborating group where members can alternately look after the herds, particularly when they graze closer to the agricultural area or at times of disease. There should be a study on setting stock numbers in response to feed availability; however, while no study has been available yet, it would be wise to consider limiting the number to 5 to 15 animals per household.
Swamp and scrub forest	Decrease of natural area due to land use changes Decline of products collected No restriction on the amount collected	Community leaders should assign watchmen to regularly monitor the use. Wood collectors ofany forms mustinform the community leaders or appointed persons before use. Collection and utilization must be done with a sustainable mind, such as collecting only firewood that are naturally dry and not a large tree, always leave some young mushrooms to flourish, not collect all. Educating the local people about the importance andusefulness of natural resources in wetland such as species that are medicinal. There should be a study on carrying capacity or potential assessment of products.

Note. PLK = Pru Lan Kwai.

Discussion

This study has attempted to establish in-depth information on the benefits of wetland ES in the unrest area and its importance to the local communities as well as proposing initial guidelines for wetland management. Certain characteristics of the sampled locals could be expected, as generally in the Muslim custom, men have to work outside to provide for the family and seldom stay at home, thus increasing the chance of finding women at home when the interview took place. The respondents received only compulsory education, leaving school at secondary level, particularly so with those who were 60 years old or more, and receiving education only from a religious setting rather than formal education. The older generation previously did not find higher education necessary, as they could work the land and gain enough to support the family comfortably. However, the situation in the area at the present time has drastically changed politically, socially, economically, and ecologically.

The socioeconomic findings confirm a lower economic status of the local people in the unrest area. Data from the National Statistical Office (2016) on the national household socioeconomic survey in the first 6 months of 2017 found that the average national household monthly income was US$850, with the expenditure US$690. Comparing these figures with those of households in the study area, with an average monthly income of US$200 and expenditure of US$181, the household figures in the study area were 4 times lower than the national average. The findings relating to ecosystem service use indicate that supplementing family food directly from natural resources could partly offset the tight family income. The data showed that fishing, rice farming, and collecting natural products were mainly used for household consumption, while livestock, short crops, and monocultures could provide extra benefits to the family financial security. The results strongly confirm that wetlands serve as a food source of people in the local community and the sustainability of the local economy (Ondiek et al. 2016; Ambastha, Hussain, & Badola, 2007; Rebelo et al., 2010). However, the value estimated in this study is merely an estimate given the results of the study. Further research needs to be done to attain a more accurate and complete value of the PLK.

We speculate that the usage frequency of households that use the provisioning services is constrained by unrest in the area. In the interviews, we found that local people were watchful of insurgencies and remained in their house for several days after such incidents occurred. This confirms earlier literature’s findings that the community people feel insecure when going outside (Songwathana, Kitrungrote, & Khupantawee, 2016). The data on the number of the incidents showed that 548 incidents occurred in 2018 (Deep South Watch, 2018). Although data were not available for the number of days people chose not to leave their house, such a high number of incidents suggest that the wetland was used less frequently than otherwise.

As there has been only limited study of the wetland and its utilization, there is still a lack of information on each type of use. This study, however, can identify some potential harm from some of the uses that might affect the state of the wetland if no management is undertaken. Uses such as agriculture, rice farming, short-term crop productions, and monoculture in particular can lead to major problems. Agricultural activities at present can withdraw unlimited volumes of water from the wetland, which can alter the ecological character of the wetlands to the point where essential regulating and supporting ES are lost (The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, FAO, & IWMI, 2014). In addition, most of farmers in PLK use chemical fertilizers and pesticides which may destroy other ecosystem service values (Verhoeven & Setter, 2010). Without proper control, the wetland public area can be threatened because of pressures from population growth and economic development. Livestock raising in the PLK has not been restricted currently, yet livestock activities can cause damage to soils, erosion, water contamination, damage to native vegetation, harm to native animals, and loss of biodiversity (Sim, 2012). Wetland areas appear to be decreasing due to a lack of clear boundaries, resulting in the decline of habitats for natural plants and fish which can be a supplementary food source and income. Generally, many and various issues require further investigation to aid the sustainable management of the PLK.

The findings on perceptions of the local people regarding natural resources in PLK wetland reflect both direct and nondirect use values. Fresh water, aquatic products, and plants were the most tangible products usually extracted from the wetland and were thus obviously significant. However, the nature and beauty of the wetland also were awarded a high level of significance for their recreational use and value, possibly due partly to their effect on relieving tensions as Tyrväinen et al. (2014) suggested that visiting nature areas has a positive effect on stress relief. This benefit of recreation has been promoted by the local authority by establishing events such as Thung Yang Dang watermelon festival and inland water traveling to support tourism in recent years. The tourism estimation value was estimate roughly at US$39,147, or US$16.31 per hectare of PLK. However, generally people in the community and nearby areas visit the wetland to enjoy the scenic views of sunset in both provinces of Pattani and Yala. Understanding this perception on the importance of ES of the local communities will be helpful in formulating appropriate policies and management actions (Petz, Minca, & Werners, 2012). More specifically, to create effective nature conservation strategies, the type of interaction with nature is significant (Lumber, Richardson, & Sheffield, 2017): It is not sufficient merely to appreciate the beauty of nature but necessary to involve positive practical actions that benefit local nature (Lumber, Richardson, & Sheffield, 2018).

The findings prove that the PLK wetland generates various ES to the surrounding communities and that the local people recognize its importance. This calls for immediate action from decision makers and stakeholders to find a sustainable way for managing this resource to support more efficiently the well-being of the people in low-income communities such as these. This study also identifies some potential problems of the current situation. Thus, the initial guidelines were formulated giving priority to the sustainable use of the direct services. However, these guidelines were still lacking, and more detail studies and planning are urgently needed. The state should not only concentrate on the measures related to security that emphasize the strategy of the local forces (Nirei & Waiwanchit 2016) but also fill the gaps of unbalanced policies by including a plan for natural ecosystem management. It is obvious from the study that if these ecosystems lose fertility, it will directly affect the livelihoods of people in the community and add more pressure to their already insecure life. It is also possible that those phenomena such as inaccessibility to food source, poor livelihoods, and low quality of life can be a supplementary factor worsening deeper conflicts in the current unrest situation. From this study, the following is suggested:

Further studies are highly necessary to provide sufficient data for management directions. As very little information is available at present, the areas of required research are wide-ranging, covering both science such as ecological study and social aspects such as education, relevant to wetland management. Nevertheless, the immediate need for research evidenced from this study includes, for example, hydrology, plants and biodiversity, fish and aquatic stock, grass land and grazing, inventory of species in each biome, and the ecological interactions and their human ecology.

More importantly, local academic or nongovernmental organization should move to empower local communities through action or participatory research to reduce the reliance on the state for improvement in their livelihoods. Sustainably managing their local resources or improving their environment would be a logical move to alleviate poverty. Learning as a community in participatory action research can help local people to build trust, gain confidence, and collaborate with each other, in turn leading to better management of the local ecosystems.

While specific data cannot be secured, general data about the characteristics, benefits and importance of wetlands, and guidance for using wetlands can be prepared and disseminated to local communities and schools to raise awareness and understanding of wetland protection.

Implications for Conservation

This study gives an overview of the patterns and characteristics of the use of provisioning ES in the PLK wetland in the unrest situation. It also reconfirms the importance of the wetland to the local low-income people despite the high-risk situation of insurgency in the area. Despite it being an initial study, some guidelines from the participatory stakeholders’ meeting were formulated. We have found that most of the samples used direct services for family consumption, particularly fisheries (78%), rice farming (80%), and gathering of natural products (100% for firewood, teal, and herb), whereas other uses are for sale at the local market or for neighbor and relative sharing to others. These generate a proportion of 0.14% to 19.34% of total household income. If managed sustainably, the well-being of the people in the area can be secured. This article also confirms that local people perceive the importance of natural resources of wetlands as very high, reflecting the various benefits ranging from physical to aesthetic value. The guidelines proposed by stakeholders for the management of provisioning ES focus strongly on sustainable use. The researchers carrying out this study make a plea for continued research into the PLK wetland, collaboration between academics and local communities in participatory action research, and dissemination of wetland information to raise awareness and preparation for wetland protection in the future.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge all respondents and stakeholders in the Pru Lan Kwai for their time and knowledge that they have rendered. The authors also greatly appreciate the anonymous reviewers for their useful and constructive comments and suggestions that shape the final version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Thailand Office of Higher Education Commission.

References

Ambastha, K., Hussain, S. A., & Badola, R. (2007). Resource dependence and attitudes of local people toward conservation of Kabartal wetland: A case study from the Indo-Gangetic plains. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 15(4), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11273-006-9029-z

Avae

(2004). Community participation research project in the restoration and conservation of PruLanKwai. Retrieved from http://elibrary.trf.or.th/download_resultTRFN.asp?fpath=RDG44S0001/RDG44S0001_full.pdf&fname=RDG44S0001_full.pdf

Awal

N. M.

Jaafar

M. F.

Mis

M. A.

Lateh

(2014). Maintenance of mother tongue: Patterns of language choice at the Malaysian-Thai border. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 282–287. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.038

Barbier, E. B. (2011). Wetlands as natural assets. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(8), 1360–1373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2011.629787

Benharoon

S. Y.

(2013). Building a culture of peace in Muslim community in southern Thailand through family communication. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 522–531. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.450

Benharoon

S. Y.

Binsaleh

(2013). News coverage on feminist issues in Thailand’s southern unrest. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 532–538. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.451

Binsaleh

(2013). Mobile learning: The case study of the four southern most provinces of Thailand in transforming critical to opportunity. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 322–330. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.429

Boonderm

Suriyanratakorn

Sangpueng

Onthong

Nettakul

Waiyawuth

(2017, September). Population genetic data of 21 STR markers in Thais of southern border provinces of Thailand. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 6, e523–e525. doi:10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.205

Bundhuwong, C. (2013). Economic life of malay mulims in southernmost thailand amidst ecological chang and unrest (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai at Manao, Hawai. Retrieved from https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/handle/10125/100577

10.

Burke, A., Tweedie, P., & Poocharoen, O. (2013). The contested corners of Asia: Subnational conflict and international development assistance the case of southern Thailand. San Fransisco, CA U.S.A.: The Asia Foundation. Retrieved from https://asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/SouthernThailandCaseStudyFullReport.pdf

11.

Chaikumbung

Doucouliagos

Scarborough

(2019). Institutions, culture, and wetland values. Ecological Economics, 157(November 2018), 195–204. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.11.014

12.

Churngchow

Sinprajukpol

(2016). Factors affecting the scholastic achievement of Prince of Songkla University students from private schools with Islam instruction in the three southern border provinces. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 37(1), 59–65. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.01.001

13.

Chuwew

S. R.

Chaichana

Chaiyarat

Nakapakorn

Boontanon

Yungthong

Chidchai

A. S.

(2014). Participatory research for conservation and wise use or sustainable use of Bung Borapet wetlands. Nakhon Pathom, Thailand: Mahidol University [in Thai].

14.

Clarkson

B. R.

Ausseil

A.-G. E.

Gerbeaux

(2018). Wetland ecosystem services. In Dymond

(Ed.), Ecosystem services in New Zealand (pp. 323–333). Lincoln, New Zealand: Manaaki Whenua Press. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9659-3_66

15.

Das

Behera

Mishra

(2015). Determinants of household use of wetland resources in West Bengal, India. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 23(5), 803–816. doi:10.1007/s11273-015-9420-8

16.

De Groot

Stuip

Finlayson

Davidson

(2006). Valuing wetlands: Guidance for valuing the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services. Water Management (Vol. 455, Ramsar Technical Report No. 3/CBD Technical Series No. 27). Montreal, Canada: Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland, Switzerland & Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

17.

Deep South Watch. (2018). Situation Report Violent Incidents in Southern Thailand/Patani [Quarter 4/2018]. Retrieved from https://deepsouthwatch.org/sites/default/files/blogs/attachment/raayngaan-q4-2018-final-th.pdf

18.

(2019). Valuating aesthetic benefits of cultural ecosystem services using conservation culturomics. Ecosystem Services, 36(August 2018), 100894. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100894

19.

Engvall

Andersson

(2014). The dynamics of conflict in Southern Thailand. Asian Economic Papers, 13, 169–189. doi:10.1162/ASEP_a_00303

20.

Feurer

Heinimann

Schneider

Jurt

Myint

Zaehringer

J. G.

(2019). Local perspectives on ecosystem service trade-offs in a forest frontier landscape in Myanmar. Land, 8(3), 45. doi:10.3390/land8030045

21.

Garrido

Elbakidze

Angelstam

(2017). Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, 96–104. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.08.018

22.

Gosling

Shackleton

C. M.

Gambiza

(2017). Community-based natural resource use and management of Bigodi Wetland Sanctuary, Uganda, for livelihood benefits. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 25(6), 717–730. doi:10.1007/s11273-017-9546-y

23.

Hajisamae

(2009). Trophic ecology of bottom fishes assemblage along coastal areas of Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 82(3), 503–514. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2009.02.010

24.

Hajisamae

Yeesin

Chaimongkol

(2006). Habitat utilization by fishes in a shallow, semi-enclosed estuarine bay in southern Gulf of Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68(3–4), 647–655. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2006.03.020

25.

Haruthaithanasan, T. (2018). Effects of school policies toward competitive and collaborative approaches on teachers’ instruction and students’ learning in schools in southern Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 1–7. [in press] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjss.2018.07.022

26.

Hong

Zhang

Lee

(2019). The fates of nitrogen in an experimental wetland food web: A stable isotope study. Wetlands, 39, 303–310. doi:10.1007/s13157-018-1085-7

27.

Jampaklay

Ford

Chamratrithirong

(2017). How does unrest affect migration? Evidence from the three southernmost provinces of Thailand. Demographic Research, 37(1), 25–52. doi:10.4054/DemRes.2017.37.3

28.

Jaruma

(2013). The effective framework of the rule of law for peace building and security. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 105–112. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.407

29.

Köbbing

J. F.

Beckmann

Thevs

Peng

Zerbe

(2016). Investigation of a traditional reed economy (Phragmites australis) under threat: Pulp and paper market, values and Netchain at Wuliangsuhai Lake, Inner Mongolia, China. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 24(3), 357–371. doi:10.1007/s11273-015-9461-z

30.

Kritpracha

Kaosaiyaporn

Atisabda

(2015). Expectation of educators and students towards a distance learning model in southernmost provinces of Thailand. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 2349–2354. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.899

31.

Kumar

Horwitz

Milton

G. R.

Sellamuttu

S. S.

Buckton

S. T.

Davidson

N. C.

Baker

(2011). Assessing wetland ecosystem services and poverty interlinkages: A general framework and case study. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56, 1602–1621. doi:10.1080/02626667.2011.631496

32.

Laeheem

Boonprakarn

(2017). Factors predicting domestic violence among Thai Muslim married couples in Pattani province. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 38(3), 352–358. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.10.005

33.

Lertsahakul

Sricharoen

Vidthayanon

Moolsiri

C. P.

Pichaisiri

Parr

J. W. K.

(2010). Community-based wetland management at Goot Ting marshes, northeast Thailand: Implications for policy and practice. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development, 10(1), 96. doi:10.1504/ijesd.2011.037693

34.

Liu

Yue

Teng

(2018). Problems and countermeasures of coastline protection and utilization in China. Ocean and Coastal Management, 153, 124–130. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.12.016

35.

Liu

Wang

Costanza

Kubiszewski

Yuan

Geng

(2019, March). The value of China’s coastal wetlands and seawalls for storm protection. Ecosystem Services, 36, 100905. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100905

36.

Liu

Zhao

Liu

Zhou

(2018). Quantification of potential flood inundation areas in the marsh wetland of Honghe National Natural Reserve, Northeast China. Ecohydrology and Hydrobiology, 18(4), 355–364. doi:10.1016/j.ecohyd.2018.10.005

37.

Lumber

Richardson

Sheffield

(2017). Beyond knowing nature: Contact, emotion, compassion, meaning, and beauty are pathways to nature connection. PLoS One, 12(5), 1–25. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0177186

38.

Lumber

Richardson

Sheffield

(2018). The seven pathways to nature connectedness: A focus group exploration. European Journal of Ecopsychology, 6, 47–68. Retrieved from http://eje.wyrdwise.com/v6/EJE%20v6_Lumber%20et%20al_minor%20edit.pdf

39.

Makaraphirom

Rattanadakul

Aedasong

Samae

Liming

Yaena

Maneesawangwong

(2018). The development of people’s participation on Saiburi watershed management. Nakhon Pathom, Thailand: Mahidol University [in Thai].

40.

Masawat

Roongtawanreongsri

Sawangchote

(2017). Stakeholders identification of participatory public policy formulation process : A case study of Kho Hong Hill at Hat Yai District in Songkhla Province. Journal of Southern Technology, 10(2), 189–198. Retrieved from https://www.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/journal_sct/article/view/104892/83449

41.

Mehvar

Filatova

Sarker

M. H.

Dastgheib

Ranasinghe

(2019). Climate change-driven losses in ecosystem services of coastal wetlands: A case study in the West coast of Bangladesh. Ocean and Coastal Management, 169(January), 273–283. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.12.009

42.

Merriman

J. C.

Gurung

Adhikari

Butchart

S. H. M.

Khatri

T. B.

Pandit

R. S.

, . . . Thapa

(2018). Rapid ecosystem service assessment of the impact of Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve on wetland benefits to local communities. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 26(4), 491–507. doi:10.1007/s11273-017-9587-2

43.

Merriman, J. C., & Murata, N. (2016). Guide for Rapid Economic Valuation of Wetland Ecosystem Services. Japan: BirdLife International Tokyo. Retrieved from https://www.birdlife.org/sites/default/files/attachments/guide_for_rapid_economic_valuation_of_wetland_ecosystem_services_2016_1.pdf

44.

Mosamae

Neamsuvan

Asae

Bensulong

Tuwaemaengae

(2012). A survey of folk remedies for gastrointestinal tract diseases from Thailand’s three southern border provinces. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 144(1), 11–21. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2012.07.043

45.

Mudor

Bunyarit

(2013). A prospective of nutrition intake for pregnant women in Pattani, Thailand. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 179–184. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.415

46.

Namdam Subdistrict Administrative Organization. (2014). 3 year development plan (year 2015–2017). Retrieved from http://www.namdam.go.th/index.php/growers

47.

National Statistical Office. (2016). Important summary report of the household socio-economic survey during the first 6 months of 2017. Bangkok, Thailand: The Ministry of Digital Economy and Society [in Thai].

48.

Neamsuvan

Kama

Salaemae

Leesen

Waedueramae

(2015). A survey of herbal formulas for skin diseases from Thailand’s three southern border provinces. Journal of Herbal Medicine, 5(4), 190–198. doi:10.1016/j.hermed.2015.09.004

49.

Niemted

(2016). The important factors of English program administration responsive to the ASEAN community for schools in the border provinces of southern Thailand. Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences, 37(3), 158–163. doi:10.1016/j.kjss.2016.08.005

50.

Nirei, S., & Waiwanchit, S. (2016). Public view on government policies affecting the quality of life of people in the southern border provinces: A case study of “Thung Yang Daeng Model.” Bangkok: King Prajadhipok’s Institute [in Thai]. Retrieved from http://www. kpi.ac.th/kpiresearch02052018-10/

51.

Ondiek, R. A., Kitaka, N., & Oduor, S. O. (2016). Assessment of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services in natural wetlands and rice fields in Kano floodplain, Kenya. Ecosystem Services, 21(2016), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.008

52.

Paku Subdistrict Administrative Organization. (2016). Context and basic information. Retrieved from https://www.paku.go.th/general1.php

53.

Paudyal

Baral

Keenan

R. J.

(2018). Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 90(August 2017), 67–81. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.011

54.

Petz

Minca

E. L.

Werners

S. E.

(2012). Managing the current and future supply of ecosystem services in the Hungarian and Romanian Tisza River Basin. Regional Environmental Change, 12, 689–700. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0284-7

55.

Prasada

I. M. Y.

Dhamira

& Masyhuri, (2019). The potential loss of rice production due to wetland conversion in East Java. In IOP conference series: Earth and environmental science (Vol. 230, pp. 1–6). Bristol, England: IOP Publishing. Retrieved from https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/230/1/012005

56.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (2018). Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Secretariat.

57.

Rebelo

L. M.

McCartney

M. P.

Finlayson

C. M.

(2010). Wetlands of Sub-Saharan Africa: Distribution and contribution of agriculture to livelihoods. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 18(5), 557–572. doi:10.1007/s11273-009-9142-x

58.

Sellamuttu

S. S.

de Silva

Nagabhatla

Max Finlayson

Pattanaik

Prasad

(2012). The Ramsar convention’s wise use concept in theory and practice: An inter-disciplinary investigation of practice in Kolleru Lake, India. Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 15(3–4), 228–250. doi:10.1080/13880292.2012.749138

59.

Sim

(2012). A guide to managing and restoring wetlands in Western Australia (pp. 28–31). Perth, Western Australia: Department of Environment and Conservation.

60.

Songwathana

Kitrungrote

Khupantawee

(2016). Factors predicting quality of life of trauma survivors in the unrest areas of the southernmost provinces of Thailand. International Journal of Behavioral Science, 11(1), 67–76. doi:10.14456/ijbs.2016.6

61.

Sun

Zhen

Giashuddin Miah

(2017, March). Comparison of the ecosystem services provided by China’s Poyang Lake wetland and Bangladesh’s Tanguar Haor wetland. Ecosystem Services, 26, 411–421. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.010

62.

Suwarno

Hein

Sumarga

(2016). Who benefits from ecosystem services? A case study for Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Environmental Management, 57(2), 331–344. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0623-9

63.

Talo Maena Subdistrict Administrative Organization. (2014). Context and basic information. Retrieved from http://www.talomaena.go.th/talomaena/index.php?name=page&file=page&op=%E0%B8%AA%E0%B8%A0%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%B1%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9B

64.

Thampanya

Vermaat

J. E.

Sinsakul

Panapitukkul

(2006). Coastal erosion and mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68(1), 75–85. doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2006.01.011

65.

Tha Thong Subdistrict Administrative Organization. (2015). 3 year development plan (year 2015–2017). Retrieved from https://www.tatong.go.th/datacenter/doc_download/a_240614_113057.pdf

66.

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), & International Water Management Institute (IWMI). (2014). Wetlands and agriculture: partners for growth. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; Rome, Italy: FAO; Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute (IWMI). Retrieved from https://www.landportal.org/library/resources/handle1056865251/wetlands-and-agriculture-partners-growth

67.

Turyahabwe

Kakuru

Tweheyo

Tumusiime

D. M.

(2013). Contribution of wetland resources to household food security in Uganda. Agriculture and Food Security, 2(1), 5. doi:10.1186/2048-7010-2-5

68.

Tyrväinen, L., Ojala, A., Korpela, K., Lanki, T., Tsunetsugu, Y., & Kagawa, T. (2014). The influence of urban green environments on stress relief measures: A field experiment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38(2014), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.12.005

69.

Vajirakachorn

(2012). Social inclusion in southern border provinces of Thailand. International Journal of Social Quality, 2, 63–80. doi:10.3167/IJSQ.2012.020205

70.

Verhoeven

J. T. A.

Setter

T. L.

(2010). Agricultural use of wetlands: Opportunities and limitations. Annals of Botany, 105, 155–163. doi:10.1093/aob/mcp172

71.

Vickruck

J. L.

Best

L. R.

Gavin

M. P.

Devries

J. H.

Galpern

(2019). Pothole wetlands provide reservoir habitat for native bees in prairie croplands. Biological Conservation, 232(January), 43–50. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.01.015

72.

Walker

(2019). The persistence of place: Hunter-gatherer mortuary practices and land-use in the Trent Valley, Ontario. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 54(September 2018), 133–148. doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2019.03.002

73.

Wang Phaya Subdistrict Administrative Organization. (2014). Context and basic information. Retrieved from https://www.wangpaya.go.th/general1.php

74.

Wichaidit

Songwathana

Balthip

Woods

(2019). Healing Strategies among Thai Buddhist widows after sudden of loss of spouse in terrorist attacks. Walailak Journal, 16(4), 243–254.

75.

Yanya

Abdul-Hakim

Abdul-Razak

N. A.

(2013). Does entrepreneurship bring an equal society and alleviate poverty? Evidence from Thailand. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 91, 331–340. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.430

76.

Zhu, D., Ryan, M. C., & Gao, H. (2019). The role of water and mass balances in treatment assessment of a flooded natural wetland receiving wastewater effluent (Frank Lake, Alberta, Canada). Ecological Engineering [in press]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2019.01.010

Ecosystem Services of a Wetland in the Politically Unstable Southernmost Provinces of Thailand

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Study Area

Data Collection and Sampling

Data Analysis

Results

Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of Sampled Households

Utilization of Provisioning ES by Local Households

Fishing

Livestock

Gathering of the natural products

Short-term crop production

Rice farming

Monoculture crops

Perception on the Importance of ES and Natural Resources in the PLK

Guidelines for the Management of Wetland Provisioning ES

Discussion

Implications for Conservation

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References