Table 3.

Differences between household status and livelihood strategies in 2008 before the commencement of the payments for environmental services (PES) programs for households that participated in the PES programs and households that did not.^a

	Bird nest participantsb			Ecotourism participantsc			Ibis Rice participantsc
	Yes	No	Pd	Yes	No	Pd	Yes	No	Pd
No. of households	28	219		27	147		50	124
Female-headed households (%)	7	5		11	5		0	8
Well-being variables
Poverty	9.4	9.4	ns	10.8	10.2	ns	11.1	9.9	*
Rice harvest (kg)	2154	1935	ns	2811	1926	**	2707	1804	***
Food security (kg)	−194	−154	ns	304	−191	(*)	486	−357	**
Livelihood strategies
Resin tappers (%)	64	55	ns	56	56	ns	54	57	ns
Rice farmer (%)	89	90	ns	93	88	ns	96	85	(*)
>1 ha of paddy fields (%)	68	72	ns	93	76	*	94	72	**
Mini tractor (%)	29	26	ns	33	25	ns	44	19	**
Rice shifting cultivation (%)	43	31	ns	11	18	ns	10	19	ns
Employed (%)	0	9	ns	19	7	(*)	14	6	ns
Service or shop (%)	14	12	ns	19	13	ns	14	14	ns
Average annual payments per household,		132	(18)		225	(14)		413	(41)
US$ (SE)
Percentage of households in the village		7	(616)		12	(499)		24	(616)
engaged in program (total households)
Percentage of households engaged		10			62			54
for > 1 year

^aData are from the same villages within the protected areas.

^bData for the Bird Nests program are based on 6 villages (247 households). The Bird Nests program provided direct payments for protection of nests of globally threatened birds.

^cData for the Ecotourism and Ibis Rice programs are based on 4 villages (174 households). The ecotourism program provided payments conditional on wildlife and habitat protection, and Ibis Rice provided households with premium prices for agricultural goods if they kept to agreed land-use plans.

^dTests of difference are mixed effects models with a binomial link function. Significance: ns, not significant;

^*P < 0.1; *P < 0.05;

^**P < 0.01;

^***P< 0.001.