A bayesian network analysis of reforestation decisions by rural mountain communities in Vietnam

Figures & data

Table 1. States and discretization methods for variables.

Variable (node)	States (range)
Ethnicity	Muong; Kinh; Others^(a)
Education	Illiterate; primary school; secondary school; high school or above, of household head
Wealth ranking	Poor; moderate; rich
Income sources	Agriculture crops; animal husbandry; forest & NTFP; off-farm^(b)
Investment capital	Forestry program; bank; self-investment
Rotation length	Long time; short time
Attitude	Very favorable to very unfavorable
Experience	Yes/no
Plantation management	Difficult; medium; easy
Accessibility	Difficult; medium; easy
Market knowledge	Yes/no
Climate	Suitable; unsuitable
Silviculture knowledge	Good/bad
Information	Yes/no
Participation	Yes/no
Expense	No expense; seedling and materials; taking care^(c)
Incentives	Yes/no
Harvest rights	Yes/no
Land tenure	Yes/no
Age	20–35; 35–50; >50
Laborer number	1–2; 3–4; >5, age 15–60
Land area	0–0.5 ha; 0.5–2 ha; >2 ha
Forest area	0–0.5 ha; 0.5–2 ha; >2 ha
Income	0–50; 50 − 100; >100
Market distance	0–6; 6–12; >12
Forest distance	0–3; >3
Planted forest area	0–0.5 ha; 0.5–2 ha; >2 ha

Note: Age, Land area, Forest area, Income, Planted forest area were discretized by expert knowledge, equal width method; Laborer number, forest distance were discretized by equal frequency; Market distance was discretized by equal width, equal frequency. ^(a) is classed as Muong and Kinh are the dominant ethnic group in the interviewed group. ^{(b) (c)} is classed as based on interviewing local people in study area. NTFP, non-timber forest products.

Table 2. Model summary for key drivers affecting planted forest area of surveyed households.

Independent variables	Unstandardized Coefficients (B)		Standardised Coefficients (Beta)	t-value	Significant (p-value)	VIF
(Constant)	.280			.477	.635
Attitude	−.355		−.268	−2.760	.007	1.310
Investment capital	.301		.223	2.497	.014	1.108
Land area	.031		.216	2.524	.013	1.016
Market distance	.083		.207	2.308	.023	1.112
Participation	.624		.200	2.063	.042	1.306
Dependent variable: planted forest area
Number of Observations	100
F	9.292***
R-squared	0.336
Adj R-squared	0.299

Note: ***p < .001, **p < .05, *p < .10 (two-sided).

Table 3. Bivariate correlation between variables in reforestation decision model (n = 100).

	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5	V6	V7	V8	V9	V10	V11	V12	V13
V1: Planted forest area	1
V2: Attitude	−.388**	1
V3: Participation	.384**	−.437**	1
V4: Land area	.214*	.076	.007	1
V5: Investment capital	.242*	−.039	.207*	.097	1
V6: Market distance	.240*	−227*	.114	−.033	−.203*	1
V7: Incentives	.226*	−.330**	.289**	−.017	−.036	.225*	1
V8: Land tenure	.112	.004	.089	.088	.269**	−.365**	.114	1
V9: Accessibility	.083	−.165	.277**	−.068	.316**	.130	.203*	.018	1
V10: Rotation length	−.246*	.106	−.349**	−.167	−.447**	−.112	−.455**	−.339**	−.288**	1
V11: Forest area	.195	.075	−.010	.996**	.089	−.021	−.011	.066	−.075	−.153	1
V12: Income	.192	.120	−.072	.215*	.010	−.216*	.055	.128	−.086	−.042	.182	1
V13: Information	.297**	−.276**	.440**	.193	−.003	.158	.552**	.152	.174	−.435**	.189	.075	1

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Note: Participation, Incentives, Information (1 = yes; 0 = no); Attitude (1 = very favorable; 5 = very unfavorable).

Figure 1. The final Bayesian network of planted forest area. Note: The values 44.2; 30.2; 25.5 in planted forest area is percentage (%); 2.02 ± 2.7 in planted forest area is (mean ± standard deviation).