Newly restored forest recovery (IIA 1 ) | 39.5 | ||||
4 | Grassland, forest bush with regenerated wood (IB, IC) | ha | 16.4 | ||
5 | Vacant land (IA) | ha | 47.7 | 5.8 | |
6 | Planted forest | ha | 108.4 | 65.2 | |
7 | Lake | ha | 4 | ||
Total | 252 | 71.0 |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Developing a plan to lease special-use forest environment to develop ecotourism at Ba Vi National Park - Hanoi - 12 -
Inspection and Supervision of the Implementation of the Forest Environment Lease Contract at the National Park Research -
Developing a plan to lease special-use forest environment to develop ecotourism at Ba Vi National Park - Hanoi - 1 -
Identify Rating Levels and Rating Scales
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gstourism,quan lan,quang ninh,ecology,ecotourism,minh chau,van don,geography,geographical basis,tourism development,science
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
of the islanders. Therefore, this indicator will be divided into two sub-indicators:
a1. Natural tourism attractiveness a2. Cultural tourism attractiveness
b. Tourist capacity
The two island communes in Quan Lan have different capacities to receive tourists. Minh Chau Commune is home to many standard hotels and resorts, attracting high-income domestic and international tourists. Meanwhile, Quan Lan Commune has many motels mainly built and operated by local people, so the scale and quality are not high, and will be suitable for ordinary tourists such as students.
c. Time of exploitation of Quan Lan Island Commune:
Quan Lan tourism is seasonal due to weather and climate conditions and festivals only take place on certain days of the year, specifically in spring. In Quan Lan commune, the period from April to June and from September to November is considered the best time to visit Quan Lan because the cultural tourism activities are mainly associated with festivals taking place during this time.
Minh Chau island commune:
Tourism exploitation time is all year round, because this is a place with a number of tourist attractions with diverse ecosystems such as Bai Tu Long National Park Research Center, Tram forest, Turtle Laying Beach, so besides coming to the beach for tourism and vacation in the summer, Minh Chau will attract research groups to come for tourism combined with research at other times of the year.
d. Sustainability
The sustainability of ecotourism sites in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes depends on the sensitivity of the ecosystems to climate changes.
landscape. In general, these tourist destinations have a fairly high level of sustainability, because they are natural ecosystems, planned and protected. However, if a large number of tourists gather at certain times, it can exceed the carrying capacity and affect the sustainability of the environment (polluted beaches, damaged trees, animals moving away from their habitats, etc.), then the sustainability of the above ecosystems (natural ecosystems, human ecosystems) will also be affected and become less sustainable.
e. Location and accessibility
Both island communes have ports to take tourists to visit from Van Don wharf:
- Quan Lan – Van Don traffic route:
Phuc Thinh – Viet Anh high-speed boat and Quang Minh high-speed boat, depart at 8am and 2pm from Van Don to Quan Lan, and at 7am and 1pm from Quan Lan to Van Don. There are also wooden boats departing at 7am and 1pm.
- Van Don - Minh Chau traffic route:
Chung Huong high-speed train, Minh Chau train, morning 7:30 and afternoon 13:30 from Van Don to Minh Chau, morning 6:30 and afternoon 13:00 from Minh Chau to Van Don.
f. Infrastructure
Despite receiving investment attention, the issue of infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism on Quan Lan Island is still an issue that needs to be resolved because it has a direct impact on the implementation of ecotourism activities. The minimum conditions for serving tourists such as accommodation, electricity, water, communication, especially medical services, and security work need to be given top priority. Ecotourism spots in Minh Chau commune are assessed to have better infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism because there are quite complete and synchronous conditions for serving tourists, meeting many needs of domestic and foreign tourists.
3.2.1.4. Determine assessment levels and assessment scales
Corresponding to the levels of each criterion, the index is the score of those levels in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1 decreasing according to the standard of each level: very attractive (4), attractive (3), average (2), less attractive (1).
3.2.1.5. Determining the coefficients of the criteria
For the assessment of DLST in the two communes of Quan Lan and Minh Chau islands, the students added evaluation coefficients to show the importance of the criteria and indicators as follows:
Coefficient 3 with criteria: Attractiveness, Exploitation time. These are the 2 most important criteria for attracting tourists to tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular, so they have the highest coefficient.
Coefficient 2 with criteria: Capacity, Infrastructure, Location and accessibility . Because the assessment area is an island commune of Van Don district, the above criteria are selected by the author with appropriate coefficients at the average level.
Coefficient 1 with criteria: Sustainability. Quan Lan has natural and human-made ecotourism sites, with high biodiversity and little impact from local human factors. Most of the ecotourism sites are still wild, so they are highly sustainable.
3.2.1.6. Results of DLST assessment on Quan Lan island
a. Assessment of the potential for natural tourism development
For Minh Chau commune:
+ Natural tourism attractiveness is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined as average (2 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of Capacity criterion is 2 x 2 = 4.
+ Exploitation time is long (4 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Exploitation time criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is assessed as good (3 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 3 x 2 = 6 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Minh Chau commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 42 points
Similar assessment for Quan Lan commune, we have the following table:
Table 3.3: Assessment of the potential for natural ecotourism development in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of self-tourismof course
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
CommuneMinh Chau
12
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
42/52
Quan CommuneLan
6
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
33/52
b. Assessment of the potential for humanistic tourism development
For Quan Lan commune:
+ The attractiveness of human tourism is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined to be large (3 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Capacity criterion is 3 x 2 = 6.
+ Mining time is average (3 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Mining time criterion is 3 x 3 = 9.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points.
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is rated as average (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Quan Lan commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 36 points.
Similar assessment with Minh Chau commune we have the following table:
Table 3.4: Assessment of the potential for developing humanistic eco-tourism in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of human tourismliterature
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Quan CommuneLan
12
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
39/52
Minh CommuneChau
6
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
36/52
Basically, both Minh Chau and Quan Lan localities have quite favorable conditions for developing ecotourism. However, Quan Lan commune has more advantages to develop ecotourism in a humanistic direction, because this is an area with many famous historical relics such as Quan Lan Communal House, Quan Lan Pagoda, Temple worshiping the hero Tran Khanh Du, ... along with local festivals held annually such as the wind praying ceremony (March 15), Quan Lan festival (June 10-19); due to its location near the port and long exploitation time, the beaches in Quan Lan commune (especially Quan Lan beach) are no longer hygienic and clean to ensure the needs of tourists coming to relax and swim; this is also an area with many beautiful landscapes such as Got Beo wind pass, Ong Phong head, Voi Voi cave, but the ability to access these places is still very limited (dirt hill road, lots of gravel and rocks), especially during rainy and windy times; In addition, other natural resources such as mangrove forests and sea worms have not been really exploited for tourism purposes and ecotourism development. On the contrary, Minh Chau commune has more advantages in developing ecotourism in the direction of natural tourism, this is an area with diverse ecosystems such as at Rua De Beach, Bai Tu Long National Park Conservation Center...; Minh Chau beach is highly appreciated for its natural beauty and cleanliness, ranked in the top ten most beautiful beaches in Vietnam; Minh Chau commune is also home to Tram forest with a large area and a purity of up to 90%, suitable for building bridges through the forest (a very effective type of natural ecotourism currently applied by many countries) for tourists to sightsee, as well as for the purpose of studying and researching.
Figure 3.1: Thenmala Forest Bridge (India) Source: https://www.thenmalaecotourism.com/(August 21, 2019)
3.2.2. Using SWOT matrix to evaluate Quan Lan island tourism
General assessment of current tourism activities of Quan Lan island is shown through the following SWOT matrix:
Table 3.5: SWOT matrix evaluating tourism activities on Quan Lan island
Internal agent
Strengths- There is a lot of potential for tourism development, especially natural ecotourism and humanistic ecotourism.- The unskilled labor force is relatively abundant.- resource environmentunpolluted, still
Weaknesses- Poorly developed infrastructure, especially traffic routes to tourist destinations on the island.- The team of professional staff is still weak.- Tourism products in general
quite wild, originalintact
general and DLST in particularalone is monotonous.
External agents
Opportunity- Tourism is a key industry in the socio-economic development strategy of the province and Van Don economic zone.- Quan Lan was selected as a pilot area for eco-tourism development within the framework of the green growth project between Quang Ninh province and the Japanese organization JICA.- The flow of tourists and especially ecotourism in the world tends toincreasing
Challenge- Weather and climate change abnormally.- Competition in tourism products is increasingly fierce, especially with other localities in the province such as Ha Long, Mong Cai...- Awareness of tourists, especially domestic tourists, about ecotourism and nature conservation is not high.
Through summary analysis using SWOT matrix we see that:
To exploit strengths and take advantage of opportunities, it is necessary to:
- Diversify products and service types (build more tourism routes aimed at specific needs of tourists: experiential tourism immersed in nature, spiritual cultural tourism...)
- Effective exploitation of resources and differentiated products (natural resources and human resources)
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: #0D0D0D; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -3pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -2pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -1pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Symbol, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s14 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s15 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s16 { color: black; font-family:Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s17 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s18 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s19 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s20 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; } div.maincontent .s21 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s22 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s23 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s24 { color: #212121; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex -
Research on the Current Characteristics of Forest Resources and Factors Affecting Forest Resources Management in the National Park Area
Summary of results of calculating forest environment rental prices at Ba Vi National Park
TT
Valuation Forest | Acreage forest | Rental price (VND/ha/year) | Forest rent (Tr. đ/ 50 years) | |
1 | Khoang Xanh Tourist Area – Fairy Stream | 112 | 691,947 | 3.875 |
2 | Thien Son - Suoi Nga Tourist Area | 252 | 570,921 | 7,194 |
3 | Da Waterfall Tourist Area | 71 | 377,856 | 1.3414 |
4 | Ao Vua Tourist Area | 108 | 632,477 | 3.4154 |
Source: Report of Ba Vi National Park
Forest environment rental price at Ba Vi National Park
Characteristic
Acreage rent (ha) | Price (VND/ha/year) | Total amount (VND million/year) | |
1. Thien Son - Suoi Nga | 252 | 0.5 | 126 |
2. Suoi Tien Green Space | 112 | 0.5 | 56 |
3. Da Waterfall | 71 | 0.4 | 28.4 |
4. King's Pond | 108 | 0.5 | 54 |
5. Tien Sa Lake | 54 | 0.2 | 10.8 |
6. Suoi Mo | 147 | 0.2 | 29.4 |
Average rental price (VND/ha/year) | 409,408 | ||
Appendix 11
Comparison between Ben En National Park and Ba Vi National Park
TT
Comparison criteria | National Park Ba Vi | National Park Ben En | Adjustment factor | Weight | |
1 | Location, accessibility | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 1 |
2 | Infrastructure conditions | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 1 |
3 | Popularity | 3 | 2 | 0.67 | 1 |
4 | Forest status | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 1 |
5 | Biodiversity | 3 | 3 | 1.00 | 1 |
6 | Landscape advantage | 2 | 2 | 1.00 | 2 |
7 | Lake advantage | 0 | 3 | 3.00 | 3 |
8 | Indigenous culture | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 |
9 | Near center/big city | 3 | 1 | 0.33 | 1 |
Source: Ben En National Park Report
In the above pricing table, the rating scores are understood as: 1- low/poor; 2- average; 3- high/favorable.
Based on this assessment, the coefficient of adjustment for the rental price of forests for tourism landscape business at Ben En National Park compared to the rental price of forest environment at Ba Vi National Park is determined as follows:
The adjustment factor F is calculated by the formula:
F=0.33*1 0.67 *1 0.67 *1 1*1 1* 2 3 * 3 0.5 *1 0.33*1 = 15.5 =1.29
(1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1) 12
Appendix 12
Summary of budget estimates for forestry items of the National Park in 2009-2011
Silviculture category
Year 2009 | Year 2010 | 2011 | ||||
Area area (ha) | Investment level (VND) | Area (ha) | Investment level (VND) | Area area (ha) | Investment level (VND) | |
New planting | 253.9 | 1,803,756,217 | 151 | 1,104,488,722 | 0 | 0 |
Special forest care | 846.3 | 957.455.241 | 834.5 | 906.438.022 | 0 | 0 |
Enclosure new | 100.2 | 115,622,989 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Transitional enclosure | 200 | 87,116,449 | 289.9 | 80,958,844 | 361.6 | 508,549,600 |
Total | 2,963,950,000 | 2,901,885,588 | 508,549,600 | |||
(Data source: Annual summary report of the National Park)
Developments of forest violations in 4 years 2008 - 2011
Target
2008 | Year 2009 | Year 2010 | 2011 | |
Number of violations | 44 | 9 | 6 | 12 |
Fine (VND) | 60,467,000 | 15,350,000 | 12,188,000 | 30,900,000 |
(Data source: Annual summary report of the National Park)
Development of TNR in ecotourism areas after renting the environment
Unit: ha
TT
Unit name | Year 2002 | 2011 | Compare | |||||
Forested area | DT no forest | DT forest | Land for infrastructure construction | DT no forest | Rate (%) | Value | ||
1 | Ao Vua Tourist Area | 107.5 | 0.0 | 107.5 | 0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
2 | Khoang Tourist Area Green-Suoi Tien | 87.8 | 23.4 | 111.2 | 0 | 0.0 | 126.7 | 23.4 |
3 | Suoi Mo Tourist Area | 5.3 | 142.4 | 145.2 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 2,739.6 | 139.9 |
4 | Thac Da Tourist Area | 65.2 | 5.8 | 68.9 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 105.7 | 3.7 |
5 | Thien Son Tourist Area- Nga Stream | 200.1 | 51.9 | 242.4 | 9.6 | 0.0 | 120.1 | 42.3 |
6 | Tien Sa Lake Tourist Area | 54.3 | 0.0 | 54.3 | 0 | 0.0 | 100.0 | 0.0 |
Total | 520.2 | 223.5 | 729.5 | 14.2 | 0.0 | 140.2 | 209.3 | |
(Data source: MTR rental performance report – 2011)
Annual forest protection investment level of MTR leasing units
Unit: 1,000 VND
TT
Unit name | Labor costs | Equipment costs | Total amount | |
1 | Ao Vua Tourist Area | 80,000 | 35,000 | 115,000 |
2 | Khoang Xanh-Suoi Tien Tourist Area | 88,000 | 25,471 | 113,471 |
3 | Suoi Mo Tourist Area | 96,000 | 24,200 | 120,200 |
4 | Thac Da Tourist Area | 80,000 | 30,574 | 110,574 |
5 | Thien Son-Suoi Nga Tourist Area | 120,000 | 50,400 | 170,400 |
6 | Tien Sa Lake Tourist Area | 48,000 | 12,468 | 60,468 |
Total | 512,000 | 178,113 | 690.113 | |
(Data source: Documents at Ba Vi National Park)
213
Appendix 13
Budget estimate for forest environment rental from 2008-2011 at Ba Vi National Park
Unit: Million VND
TT
Unit name | Acreage forest (ha) | Approved rental price | Forest rent in 2008 | Year 2009 | Year 2010 | 2011 | ||||
Rental price is negotiable. adjust | Forest rent | Rental price is negotiable. adjust | Forest rent | Rental price is negotiable. adjust | Forest rent | |||||
1 | Ao Vua Tourist Area | 107.5 | 0.5 | 53.75 | 0.582 | 62,565 | 0.60 | 63,909 | 0.59 | 63,495 |
2 | Khoang Xanh-Suoi Tien Tourist Area | 111.2 | 0.5 | 55.60 | 0.582 | 64,718 | 0.59 | 66,108 | 0.59 | 65,680 |
3 | Suoi Mo Tourist Area | 147.7 | 0.2 | 29.40 | 0.23 | 34,315 | 0.24 | 35,052 | 0.24 | 34,825 |
4 | Thac Da Tourist Area | 71.0 | 0.4 | 28.40 | 0.47 | 33,058 | 0.48 | 33,768 | 0.47 | 33,549 |
5 | Thien Son-Suoi Nga Tourist Area | 252.0 | 0.5 | 126 | 0.58 | 146,664 | 0.59 | 149,814 | 0.59 | 148,844 |
6 | Tien Sa Lake Tourist Area | 54.3 | 0.2 | 10.86 | 0.23 | 12,641 | 0.24 | 12,913 | 0.24 | 12,829 |
Total | 743.4 | 304.09 | 353,968 | 361,563 | 359,222 | |||||
(Data source: Ba Vi National Park documents)
214
Appendix 14
Results of forest protection and development in the first 5 years of Thien Son - Suoi Nga Tourist Area and Thac Da Tourist Area
TT
Silvicultural investment costs | Unit | Thien Son - Suoi Nga Tourist Area | Thac Da Tourist Area | |
I | Forest area | |||
1 | Planting area | ha | 41.5 | 5.2 |
2 | Forest enrichment area | ha | 90.2 | 27.83 |
II | Expense | |||
1 | New planting costs | Tr.đ | 559.24 | 32.24 |
2 | Cost of forest enrichment | Tr.đ | 223.5 | 104.36 |
3 | Investment in forest fire prevention and control | Tr.đ | 70.77 | 59.25 |
4 | Building milestones | Tr.đ | 29.92 | 7.32 |
Total | Tr.đ | 883.43 | 203.17 |
(Source: MTR rental plan at Thien Son - Suoi Nga Tourist Area and Thac Da Tourist Area)
1
Appendix 15
National Park System in Vietnam
Region
Garden name | Year of establishment | Area (ha) | Location | |
Northern midlands and mountains | Bai Tu Long | 2001 | 15,783 | Quang Ninh |
Ba Be | 1992 | 7,610 | Bac Kan | |
Tam Dao | 1986 | 36,883 | Vinh Phuc, Thailand Nguyen, Tuyen Quang | |
Xuan Son | 2002 | 15,048 | Phu Tho | |
Hoang Lien | 1996 | 38,724 | Lai Chau, Lao Cai | |
Northern Delta | Cat Ba | 1986 | 15,200 | Hai Phong |
Xuan Thuy | 2003 | 7,100 | Nam Dinh | |
Ba Vi | 1991 | 6,986 | Hanoi | |
Cuc Phuong | 1966 | 20,000 | Ninh Binh, Thanh Hoa, Peace | |
North Central Coast | Ben En | 1992 | 16,634 | Thanh Hoa |
Pu Mat | 2001 | 91,113 | Nghe An | |
Vu Quang | 2002 | 55,029 | Ha Tinh | |
Phong Nha- Ke Bang | 2001 | 200,000 | Quang Binh | |
White Horse | 1991 | 22,030 | Thua Thien-Hue | |
South Central Set | Phuoc Binh | 2006 | 19,814 | Ninh Thuan |
God Mountain | 2003 | 29,865 | Ninh Thuan | |
Central Highlands | Chu Mom Ray | 2002 | 56,621 | Kon Tum |
Kon Ka Kinh | 2002 | 41,780 | Gia Lai | |
Yok Don | 1991 | 115,545 | Dak Lak | |
Chu Yang Sin | 2002 | 58,947 | Dak Lak | |
Bidoup Nui Ba | 2004 | 64,800 | Lam Dong | |
Southeast | Cat Tien | 1992 | 73,878 | Dong Nai, Lam Dong, Binh Phuoc |
Fat Bu Gia Map | 2002 | 26,032 | Binh Phuoc | |
Go Xa Kiln Cool | 2002 | 18,765 | Tay Ninh | |
Con Dao | 1993 | 15,043 | Ba Ria-Vung Tau | |
Southwest | Tram Chim | 1994 | 7,588 | Dong Thap |
Ca Mau Cape | 2003 | 41,862 | Ca Mau | |
U Minh Ha | 2006 | 8,286 | Ca Mau | |
Upper U Minh | 2002 | 8,053 | Kien Giang | |
Phu Quoc | 2001 | 31,422 | Kien Giang |
Source: General Department of Forestry - Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development