Xuan Thuy National Park is a national park in Nam Dinh Province, Vietnam, part of the Hong River Biosphere Reserve. On January 2, 1989, the area of 12,000 hectares surrounding the mouth of the Red River in Giao Thy District, north-east Vietnam, was designated as Southeast Asia’s first Ramsar site, the 50th worldwide. The Government decided to construct the Xuan Thuy Wetland Natural Reserve 6 years later. Soon after, in 2003, it was renamed Xuan Thuy National Park, and it was placed under the jurisdiction of Nam Dinh Province’s Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Tu et al., 2006). Furthermore, UNESCO designated the park as part of the Red River Biosphere Reserve’s core zone (Phan Nguyen Hong, Le Xuan Tuan and Phan Thi Anh Dao. 2007). Both national and international authorities give numerous titles, and the significant support from the Government and international organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) reflects the importance of the topic. The map of the research region–XTNP–is shown in Figure 1.

Source: Xuan Thuy National Park (Xuan Thuy Natural Wetland Reserve, 2018)

XTNP is located in Giao Thuy District (Nam Dinh Province), 150 km southeast of Hanoi. It is the largest coastal wetland habitat in Vietnam’s north and is located south of the Red River mouth. The Core Zone spans 7.100 ha, 4,000 hectares of low tide wetlands, and 3.100 hectares of land. It encompasses the islands of Con Ngan, Con Lu, and Con Xanh. The largest islet, Con Ngan, is covered with aquaculture fields and some mangrove forests. Sandy beaches, as well as alluvial flats and aquaculture fields, encircle the Con Lu islet. Con Lu, the smallest of the three islets, is being enlarged by alluvium from the Red River and covered by a sandy layer. The Buffer Zone encompasses an area of 8.000 hectares. The park is a delta, and estuary islands sustain coastal mangroves and the Red River delta’s flat mud ecology. The region is surrounded by coastal dikes and bordering wetlands. The land is also known for the VAC human ecological model (model of cultivating vegetable gardens, rearing fish in ponds, and animal husbandry all in one house) and silvo fishery models. Wet rice farming and dike construction, and land reclamation have a long history in the area (Hong et al., 2007a).

A section of the vacant land in the XTNP Core Zone is used for shrimp-raising ponds and large clam rearing sites (a part of the sandy plain near the end of Con Ngan). Tents and cottages pitched to care for such ponds were erected haphazardly. The Buffer Zone’s land is separated into many types, including residential land, agricultural farming land, aquaculture land, mangroves and flats, and a few mangrove regions along river canals (Hong et al., 2007a).

XTNP is a staging and wintering habitat for shorebirds, gulls, and waterfowl in the Red River Delta’s coastal zone. The National Park is home to 250 bird species (150 migratory and 50 waterbird species) from 41 families and 13 orders. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species lists nine species as endangered, including the spoon-billed sandpiper and Nordmann’s greenshank. During the migratory season, 65–75 black-faced spoonbills, chosen as the park’s emblem, can be seen. The whole number of black-faced spoonbills in the globe is around 1,000, indicating that 5% of the species’ total population lives in Xuan Thuy National Park during the winter months. Other uncommon animal species can also be found in the park. These include otter species and endangered cetaceans, including Chinese white dolphins, finless porpoises, and rorqual whales. It also contains 30 distinct reptile species and an unimaginable amount of various insects (Hong et al., 2007b).

According to the Giao Thuy District People’s Committee’s 2015 statistics, 47.123 people reside in the National Park’s five Buffer Zone Communes (Giao Thien, Giao An, Giao Lac, Giao Xuan, and Giao Hai). The average population density per square kilometer is from 1,023 to 1,331 persons. It is due to the annual population increase of more than 1%, which is still increasing. The majority of the locals’ income comes from agricultural pursuits, mainly rice cultivation. Agriculture land is diminishing year by year due to unfavorable natural changes, resulting in a scarcity of land for agricultural output expansion. While one economic area has reached its limits, the second most significant one still has much room to grow: Fisheries accounted for 36.1% of a family’s income in 2007. The Buffer Zone had 1,800 hectares of aquaculture ponds. The maritime company is rapidly expanding and has a higher economic turnover than traditional agriculture, with an annual growth rate of 14.9%. On the other hand, clam-rearing can have a high financial return but requires substantial expenditures and puts additional strain on the ecosystem (Ratsimbazafy et al., 2012). As water quality deteriorates, several aquacultural ponds cease to profit after a few years, putting the owner in a difficult financial situation (Xuan Thuy Natural Wetland Reserve, 2018).

The overall objective of this study is to assess the awareness and attitudes of local people about the values of XTNP, conservation regulations and identify potential conservation behaviors of the community. Primary data were collected in two different ways, namely structured interviews and focus group discussions. Structured interviews were conducted on households as sample units, using a questionnaire. The questionnaire had open and close-ended questions to collect much information concerning socio-economic conditions and people’s perception of park management (Khalilzadeh and Tasci, 2017). Besides, there were also interviews with selected key informants intended to obtain more in-depth information about various aspects related to community perceptions and the potential for pressure on conservation (Badola et al., 2012).

Table 2 summarizes the socio-economic characteristics of the sample. 98.3% of the respondent investigated was born locally. 1.7% of people were coming from another place. The average lifetime of households in the village is 40.5 years 100% of respondents are Kinh ethnic.

The sample’s men and women rates are quite balanced (58% male, 42% female). Regarding education level, the number of people who finished secondary school accounted for a fairly large proportion, 71.2%. This rate is up to 84% for Giao Thien and Giao Lac communes, and 52% for Giao Xuan commune. Primary school students account for a relatively small percentage (about 5% of the total sample). The rate is similarly low for university/college level (only 3.6%). No one has a post-graduate degree. Thus, it can be seen that the education level of the respondents in the five buffer zone communes is relatively low. According to the survey results, an average of 5.1 people in a household in the buffer zone communes (this variable is quite similar in all five communes). The largest families have seven people, and the smallest ones have two people. The average household income is 98.17 million VND/household/year. The lowest income level of the household is 60 million VND/household/year, and the highest income level varies among communes. For Giao An commune, the highest household income is 360 million VND/household/year. Giao Thien and Giao Lac communes are 320 million VND/household/year and about 280 million VND/year household/year in Giao Xuan and Giao Hai.

With the main occupation, the majority of the people in the villages are farmers, growing rice and raising shrimp. Other occupations rates are very low—only 4.3% of households planting and harvesting forests. About 2.7% does civil-related jobs such as security, or work in cooperatives, district, authority agencies.

First, the study assesses the perception of the roles of wetlands in the XTNP for community livelihoods. Regarding the importance of wetland in XTNP, 62% of people said that wetland is very important for livelihoods, 10% of villagers said they are particularly important for livelihood. 22% of people think it is normal, and 6% think it is somewhat important. There are no villagers who believe that the wetland is totally not important for their livelihood.

More specifically, income from wetland activities accounts for a considerable proportion of the income of interviewed households. 34% of household heads report that wetland activities bring about up to 80% of their total income. 44% of heads said that income from the wetland accounted for 50–79% of the entire family income. Only 20% of them think that 30–49% of the total income of the whole family comes from wetland-related activities, and only 2% believe that wetland provides less than 30% of the total income of their family. So, the wetland has really played an important role in total household income for the people in these localities.

The study also raises questions about the change in income from wetland-related activities in households over the past 3 years. In particular, 58% of households responded that income from wetlands was almost unchanged. To explain this, the interviews said that the prices of farmed seafood and rice had not changed much in recent years, while farming and rice cultivation are greatly affected by climate change. Not many households expand their farming scale. Instead, some people move to Hanoi to find work in industrial zones or as domestic helpers. However, among those interviewed villagers, 42% said that their income increased slightly because the mangrove forest was protected in the past 3 years, so the output products from the forest have increased. Besides, the local policies also help them have enough irrigation water for agriculture, and improved infrastructure helps their business from the forest better. The statistical results are shown in Figure 2.

Awareness of wetland values.

The study then evaluates people’s awareness of the indirect values of wetland through questions about identifying these value groups. There are five groups of forest ecological values that are disseminated to the survey sample:

• Forests in wetlands provide disaster protection values

A pretty surprising result is that 98% of the respondents know the value of assets for their future descendants; no one is unaware. 10% of respondents ( n = 68 ) said that they were well aware that forests were valuable assets to their descendants and that up to 88% ( n = 596 ) answered that they know to some extent that they need to protect wetland for their future children. They want to preserve the value of wetland resources and the environment so that their children and grandchildren can enjoy these values.

Regarding the value of mangrove forests that protect water sources and prevent soil erosion, up to 64% of people know this value very clear, 36% of people know a little (known to some extent), nobody answered that they don’t know (0%). This perception may be due to households in the area experiencing water problems or being affected by soil erosion, who also live along the forest, so have experience and knowledge about prices this kind of forest value (Macura et al., 2011).

The disaster prevention value of mangroves is also perceived to a relatively high degree as 40% of respondents knowing it well, and 54% know it to some extent. The reason is that the Xuan Thuy area annually suffers from three to five storms and mangroves act as a protective shield for people’s livelihood activities and local welfare facilities. The statistical results are shown in Table 3. Statistical results of this table has been illustrated in Figure 3, which provides the percentage of people rating the importance of preserving forest resources.

Regarding information sources that help people know about the values of wetlands, nearly 42% of respondents said that their understanding comes from practical experience (livelihoods, living with forests, near forests), 33.3% of people know through social networks, the internet, and 15% of them get the information through television, radio. Only 5.4% of people know these by local media programs, while the remaining 4.3% said they know through friends, relatives, or children. Statistical details about the main sources of information on ecosystem values of the forest to the household heads have been shown in Figure 4.

The expert asked local people the most important causes of forest degradation in XTNA. People are requested and ranked the seriousness of threats to national Park from most serious to completely not serious (5 scales) (Megaze et al., 2017) as shown in Table 4 below.

The survey data shows that shrimp farming is considered the most serious threat to wetlands in Xuan Thuy. 67% of people think that shrimp farming has a serious or very serious impact on wetlands. In-depth interviews show that shrimp farmers know that industrial production of shrimp increases the amount of excess food as well as chemicals and drugs to treat aquatic diseases in the environment, affecting the ecosystem, changing the food chain in nature, loss of biodiversity, degradation of land resources, and soil re-contamination. However, 33% of households think that shrimp farming does not affect the environment and wetlands.

Agricultural activities are also considered as one of the essential factors causing wetland degradation and threat when 72% of people think that this activity causes very serious and serious impacts. However, only 53% of households rated illegal fishing as a serious and very serious threat to wetlands, while 47% considered it normal. In general, the group that chose the “normal” level in threats accounted for a relatively large proportion, showing that the awareness of threats posed by their livelihood activities to the XTNP is not high.

The resident knowledge about the zoning system in the Park and its rules is an important indicator to know the intensity of communication between the local people and park officers. The XTNP has three zones (core, ecological restoration, and buffer zone), and it should be known by the local people around. This knowledge is important because some aspects will determine the conservation performance of each zone (Htun et al., 2012).

The survey shows low knowledge on the functions of zones by local communities. 59% of people do not know the main functions of zones, 32% know to a certain extent, and only 9% know each zone’s functions. Specifically, there was insufficient knowledge that shrimp farming in XTNP should only be done in the buffer zone. The proportion of people who knew this rule was only 12.4%. About 83.6% did not know it at all, and 4.0% was ensured. Similarly, the knowledge on the collection of non-timber forest products in the core zone was relatively low. The people who knew this rule were only about 28.5%, and the rest, 71.5%, did not know.

People’s knowledge about the park boundaries was also not good enough; only about 18.3% of respondents knew it, and the remaining 81.7% did not know and were less likely to know. The people’s knowledge about the outer boundary was mainly obtained from information independently heard from their daily activities around the village.

In this part, people are asked questions to assess their attitudes and behaviors of participating in the conservation management of XTNP for their livelihoods and communities (Mamo, 2015). First of all, people were asked whether the locality should continue promoting economic development and creating income and jobs even though it may cause environmental quality degradation (wetland). More than 60% of people choose ‘totally disagree’ and ‘disagree’ with this view. So people do not want to trade off the economy for the reduction of resources. 22% agree, and 6% strongly agree with the economic development plan, although it may have to be traded off by resource degradation and environmental quality. These statistical data have been shown in Figure 5.

Next, when asked about the views on wetland protection in Xuan Thuy, most people agreed that wetland resources should be protected. A five-point semantic differential scale was used to measure the responsive’s ratings on the items described above.

Points of view are ranked in order in the questionnaire:

According to the survey results presented in Table 5, up to 79.2% of the respondents in the sample chose the opinion “Strongly agree to protect wetlands”. Even in Giao Lac and Giao Xuan communes, almost all respondents strongly agreed, corresponding to the selection rate of 96 and 98%. Only 2.2% ( n = 15 ) of people have unclear attitudes, and no one opposes wetlands protection.

In the next section, people were asked about the importance of XTNP conservation for household livelihoods. They were also asked about which actors play an essential role in XTNP conservation. There are five named subjects including:

1) Government and management bodies

Up to 42.2% think that the state and management agencies are the most important management subjects, 24.4% choose social organizations as the most important subjects. 12.4% think that enterprises are the most important management of natural resources and then the Government. Only 21% of respondents believe that individuals and families are the most important management subjects of XTNP. When asked to prioritize their willingness to participate in conservation activities that households can do to conserve wetlands at XTNP, the results were as follows in Table 6.

57% of people think that participating in local communication activities is the most important method for households. 32% believe that participating in XTNP management projects implemented by the state and NGOs is prioritized. Financial contribution to XTNP conservation is also important, but only 8% selected it as the most important activity. Also, not many people attach the most important level to propaganda for relatives, relatives, and friends about environmental protection (2.2%).

Similarly, when asked about their willingness to participate in wetland protection for the next generation, 58.4% said they were willing to participate, even 32.6% stated they were very willing. Only a few people are unwilling; the “normal” number of choices is about 8%. Thus, people highly appreciate the meaning of environmental conservation for future generations. They are willing to participate in conservation for their children and grandchildren.

An interesting question in this section is assessing the view of households willing to sacrifice part of their current income to preserve wetlands for future generations. People also expressed a consistent opinion about conserving wetland resources and participating in conservation activities in the above sentences when up to 59.7% are willing to sacrifice income for future generations. There are 29.6% strongly willing. Only 12% keep their attitude “normal,” while less than 5% declare they are unwilling to sacrifice income. The results have been shown in Figure 6.

As above section, the respondents were introduced with statements which they were questioned to agree or disagree with conservation statement ranging from very disagree (coded 1) to very agree (coded 5). In data analysis, the response of statement were averaged to build an index of conservation attitude. Higher index showed more favourable attitudes for conservation. The mean attitude index was 43.98, with range from 1.92 to 5.00. This showed that on average, households have fairly strong positive attitude towards XTNP conservation.

Conservation attitude is a function of various factors. Key among them include demographic and socio-economic factors (Mir et al., 2015). As above, a five-point semantic differential scale was used to measure the respondent’s ratings on the wetland protection attitude. In this study, logistic regression was employed to test for independent variables’ predictive ability on the dependent variable (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2014). Conservation attitude was regressed against age, household size, length of residency, gender, education, and employment (demographic and socio-economic factors). The model goodness of fit was significant with a p-value < 0.01, indicating that the model could classify the respondents regarding attitudes towards conservation (Nastran and Istenic, 2015).

Pearson correlation was employ to set up the relation between attitude of conservation and characteristics of respondents such as household size, age, employment, length of residency and education. Pearson’s correlation indicated positive and neagative relationship for different variables with R ranging from –0.48 to 0.51 (Table 7).

Logistic regression analysis was employed to test for independent variables predictive ability on the dependent variable. The whole model explained the variance of conservation attitudes between 23.5 and 29.8% (R square) and correctly classified 69.2% of the cases. Among the predictor variables: age, length of residency, and education significantly explained the attitude towards forest conservation. Among the significant predictors, age emerged as the strongest predictor of holding favorable conservation attitudes, followed by the length of residency. Since the coefficient of age was positive, the likelihood of having favorable attitudes towards conservation increased with age. The coefficients of the length of residence were also significantly positive. It suggests that the conservation attitudes were increasing with an increase in length of residency. In addition, the number of years of schooling also has a positive effect on the conservation attitude of the people. As the education level increases, awareness increases leading to a higher consent to the conservation of wetlands in the sample. Table 8 below shows the logistic regression predicting the likelihood of having favorable conservation attitudes.