THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN FOREST, FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOOD SUSTAINABILITY IN GUNUNG TEBU FOREST RESERVE, TERENGGANU

Full text

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
THE DYNAMICS BETWEEN FOREST, FOOD SECURITY AND LIVELIHOOD
SUSTAINABILITY IN GUNUNG TEBU FOREST RESERVE, TERENGGANU
Dr Huda Farhana Mohamad Muslim
Social Forestry Programme (SFP)
Research Planning Division
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109 Kepong,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Email: hudafarhana@frim.gov.my
Mohd Parid Mamat
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109 Kepong,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Email: paridms@frim.gov.my
Faten Naseha Tuan Hussain
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109 Kepong,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Email: fatennaseha@frim.gov.my
Mukrimah Abdullah
Forest Research Institute Malaysia (FRIM)
Kepong, 52109 Kepong,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia.
Email: mukrimah@frim.gov.my
ABSTRACT
Forests are important for food security and better livelihood. Forests provide and maintain the livelihoods of rural and many of those
living in severe poverty rely to some degree on forests for their livelihoods. Although many studies have seen significant dependency
of the local people on forests resources, the degree of reliance may vary across different localities, within a rural community due to
dynamic changes in the socioeconomic status. This study investigated the attitude and perception toward forest conservation and the
contribution of forest to the rural community. It also examined how the forest has contributed to rural household’s livelihood
concerning food security at Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve, Terengganu. Data were obtained from a random sample of 380 surveyed
households living within the vicinity of protected forest. The results show that forest conservation was important as a habitat for flora,
fauna restoration and climate change control. Forest reserve contributed as a source of household’s income in terms of both cash and
in-kind income. The monthly cash income was identified from three sources: paid employee, self-revenue, and agricultural resources.
The local community had higher cash income compared to in-kind income. The results revealed that the majority of the households
rely on agricultural resources (36%). The findings will provide a more thorough picture of the dynamics between forest and food
security, thus will help in formulating better suited strategies to tackle issues related to food security and poverty. This study
contributed to the theoretical discussion on the importance of tropical forests as a source of food security, environmental products and
income for rural livelihoods.
Keywords: socioeconomic, forests, food security, local livelihood, communities.

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
INTRODUCTION
Forests provide us with shelter, livelihoods, water, food and fuel security and also preserving cultural, recreational and other intrinsic
values which enhance people's quality of life (Mok, 1992) other than its direct benefits. Forests in Malaysia are classified into seven
categories based on changes in the characteristics of height above sea level, and the combination of flora, habitat, climate, and soil. The
forest classification is divided into the mangrove forest, peat swamp forest, lowland dipterocarp forest, hill dipterocarp forest, upper
dipterocarp forest, montane forest and ericaceous forest (Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia, 2020).
Malaysia is endowed with rich natural resources and is well-known as one of the 17 mega biodiversity countries worldwide. Malaysia
has 55% forested land (DOSM, 2019) to be conserved, managed and preserved for future generations. Forest in Malaysia, in particular,
the Permanent Forest Reserved (PFR) is administered under the National Forestry Act 1984 (Amendment 1993). Whereas, Forestry
Department Peninsular Malaysia is the regulatory body in charge of Permanent Forest Reserve (PFR) areas in Peninsular Malaysia. In
2019, PFR in Peninsular Malaysia was recorded as 4,812,326 ha, which is 43.4% of the total forested areas in the same region.
Whereas, PFR in Terengganu was recorded as 540,309 ha (Forest Department of Peninsular Malaysia, 2019), contributing to 11% of
total reserved areas, while Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve alone accounted for 25,259.51 ha or 4.7% of the total PFR in Terengganu
(Terengganu Forest Department, 2019).
The most direct connection between forestry and food security is the food items produced by trees. Trees directly supplied varieties of
natural healthy foods including fruits, nuts, leaves, roots, seeds and gums are just some of the huge arrays of edible foods. Forests also
help to protect land, water, and biological resources, and they play an important role in maintaining the productivity of agricultural and
environmental systems. Other than that, forests contributed to food security in many different ways, particularly through their role in
protecting the environment and provisioning for ecosystem services (Ferrarro and Hanauer, 2011). In this regard, the forest cover is
deemed important to maintain the soil and water base that is crucial for sustainable agriculture whilst providing conducive habitat for
the crops and livestock to interact biologically, while also reducing climate change impacts and extreme weather events (Calder et al.,
2008). In general, the widely accepted definition of food security is: “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical,
social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food which meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active
and healthy life. This concept is applied to the family level as household food security, with individuals as the primary concern (FAO
2003:29).
While it is true that forest foods do not always provide staple items, and hardly make up the majority of items in the diet by number or
volume. For many rural people, forests supplement what is available from agriculture and various other resources in three main ways,
i) forests act as a ‘safety net’ or ‘buffer’ in times of shortages due to unforeseen externalities such as droughts, crop failure, disease
pandemic, illness and other kinds of emergency or external shocks; ii) forests products are often valued culturally and are important to
local food systems and food sovereignty; and iii) diverse healthy foods are produced from the forests which contain high
micronutrients and fibre with low sodium, refined sugar and fat.
Although many studies have seen significant dependency of the local people on forests resources, the degree of dependency might vary
across various localities of rural community, due to dynamic changes in the socioeconomic status. Some studies have revealed that
locals and forests are significantly dependent on each other, through direct and indirect contributions. Direct contribution referred to
the forest resources as a food supply, source of water supply, land use for agricultural purposes, wildlife abundance (Nelson et al.,
2015) and household livestock holding (Dhakal et al., 2011). While indirect contributions included the total income perceived by local
communities from tree products (Van Chu et al., 2019), tree crops, wood products, and other non-timber forest products (Dao and
Holsher, 2018).
Forests and their goods may have impacted these rural communities significantly through the diversity of forest food. As the forests
and their goods aimed for the production of diverse, high-quality yields, it also aims to generate supplementary income through the
diverse sources. The communities, especially in rural areas perceived the diversity of yields through various sources in herbal products,
nurseries, vacation homes, tours and workshops as an additional income related to the forest (Park et al., 2017). The community’s
dependencies on the forest and its resources have become an important topic being heavily discussed and debated in developing
countries including Malaysia. Malaysia ranks 28th – from 113 countries on the 2019 Global Food Security (GFS) Index.
Over the decades since its conception on the contribution of the forest, researchers from a wide range of geographical locations have
provided evidence showing consequences of biodiversity loss and deforestation and the importance of the forest to food security.
Despite increasing awareness of the forest contribution to agricultural and food security, however, it is astonishing how little is known
about the phenomenon especially for the developing tropical forest such as Malaysia. Indeed, although there is a growing literature that
concerns the direct connection between forestry and food security, the majority of attention has so far been focused to the food items

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
produced by trees (Park et al., 2017; Aju, 2014). A more comprehensive discussion is still lacking. Here, we present the current state of
understanding (with particular emphasis on the direct and indirect scenarios of the forest contribution and food security), summarize
income level generation and suggest future directions.
This paper focused on the contribution of Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve (GTFR), Terengganu to food security elements in the adjacent
localities, which has a diverse range of socioeconomic backgrounds and has been exposed to a certain degree of development. The
primary objectives of this study are to investigate the perception toward forest conservation and the contribution of forest to the rural
community. Then, it examined how the forest has contributed to rural household’s livelihood in relation to food security at GTFR,
Terengganu. Besides, this research will provide inputs to enhancing the potential of Terengganu state in terms of forest biodiversity,
tourism and food security.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Study site
This study focused on the local communities in Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve, Terengganu as the forest adjacent to their house
location. The total of amenity forests in Terengganu state is 11 (Terengganu Forestry Department, 2021) with a total area of forested
land is 542, 411 hectares (in 2018). This is equivalent to 42% of the total state’s land area (TRDI.my, 2021). The local communities
near the forest are involved as part-time tour guides, as the main attraction of GTFR is the peak mountain, which is popular among
hikers. The entry point to the peak Mountain Tebu (locally known as Gunung Tebu) is Lata Belatan Amenity Forest, which is under the
jurisdiction of the Terengganu State Forestry Department. This recreational forest is located as the base of Gunung Tebu (5°63′90″N,
102°58′78″E). Although the forest reserve is surrounded by oil palm and rubber plantations, there is a waterfall here that attracts many
visitors weekly for recreational activities. The clear water attracts visitors not only from Terengganu, but other states in Malaysia,
including foreigners. This area consists of fast-flowing cascades and characterized by lowland riparian forest and low hill dipterocarp
forest (Sumarli et al., 2015). Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve (GTFR) is located at the northeast of the Banjaran Timur in Besut, which is
the northernmost district of Terengganu, bordering the state of Kelantan. At almost 1,097 m above sea level, this mountain is
considered the fifth highest peak in Terengganu. It consists of a dipterocarp forest containing a significant variety of flora and fauna of
conservation interest, indicating that the forest reserve is in a green scenery and untouched (Sulaiman et al., 2014).
Previously, the research focused on forest conservation among the indigenous communities in the Semaq Beri tribe in Hulu
Terengganu and their large dependency on forests especially food and income generation (Abdullah et al., 2014). The conception of
this aboriginal group on forests as a resource “bank” that benefits them and their futures has motivated this study, which focuses on the
role of forest in the daily lives of local communities especially the Malay group.

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
Figure 1. Study location of Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve (GTFR)
Data collection and questionnaire form
Data collection in this study involves four main techniques, namely rapid rural appraisal (RRA), survey research, field research and
stakeholders’ consultation workshop. The rapid rural appraisal technique is crucial to enable the research team to have an overview of
the existing environment and the extent of forest resource utilisation by the local community living near GTFR.
In July 2020, 380 respondents from 7 villages bordering Gunung Tebu Forest Reserve (GTFR) participated in a cross-sectional study
using face-to-face interviews. Locally known as kampung, the villages included were Kampung Kuala Kubang, Kampung Gong Dasar,
Kampung Tok Dor, Kampung Felda Selaseh, Kampung Bakap, Kampung Jabi and Kampung Renek. These villages were selected due
to their proximity to the study area, which was less than a 6km radius from GTFR. The questionnaire consisted of scaled (Likert-scale),
pre-coded and green-ended questions. The questionnaire covered respondents’ socio-demographic and economic background, their
perception of forest conservation programs, the household member information (without a name and identification number), the status
of employment, and finally the households’ sources of monthly income to relate their dependency on forest resources.
Methods of analysis
The study was carried out in seven localities bordering GTFR. A total of 380 households head (Table 1) were interviewed and the data
were analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. The descriptive and the quantitative data analyses were carried out using the SPSS
statistic software (Version 22).
Table 1: Information on the household involved in the research survey
No
Settlement/ Name of village(s)
Number of the house
(A)
Number of interviewed
households
(B)
%
(B)/(A)
1
Kg Kuala Kubang
112
61
54
2
Kg Felda Selasih
158
60
38
3
Kg Renek
260
51
20
4
Kg Bakap
300
52
17
5
Kg Tok Dor
230
56
24
6
Kg Gong Dasar
320
52
16
7
Kg Jabi
300
48
16
Total
1,680
380
23
Source: Field survey (2020)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sociodemographic profile of localities in the study area
Table 2. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of household (n=380)
Basic Information of Head of Household
N
Frequency (%)
Gender
Male
312
82.1
Female
68
17.9
Education level
No formal education
22
5.8
Primary school
88
23.2

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
Lower secondary school
204
53.7
Upper secondary school
12
3.2
Tertiary education
54
14.2
Marital Status
Single
58
15.3
Married
292
76.8
Widow
30
7.9
Age
(Mean = 48)
<21
5
1.3
21-30
48
12.6
31-40
80
21.1
41-50
72
18.9
51-60
80
21.1
>60
95
25.0
Source: Field survey, 2020
Table 2 showed that the male respondents were higher (82%) than the female respondents (18%). In terms of age, most respondents
were ranged in the middle-aged from 31 to 40 years old (21%) and 51-60 years old (21%). Only 5% of respondents were under the age
of 21 (18 to 21 years old). In terms of education, 57% of respondents completed their secondary school, followed by 23% of
respondents finished primary school. The majority of the respondents (77%) were married.
The forest contribution
The forest and community were related. The community forest is important and plays a significant role in improving forest
conservation by providing basic needs of the local communities and for socio-cultural purposes including as a source of livelihood.
This current article is concerned with the forest contribution, especially to the food security element. Therefore, the dynamics between
forest and food security are perceived through the household’s monthly income. The relationship can be identified through sources of
monthly income, in which the household’s income was divided into a few main categories namely paid employee, business revenues,
agricultural resources and other sources. The contribution of forest resources to rural communities and livelihood could be determined
through the number of households perceived income from the forest reserve.
Monthly household income
Table 3. Sources of average monthly household income (n=380)
Sources of income
Local communities adjacent to GTFR
RM (MYR)
%
A. Cash/Direct income
1. Paid employee/ Employed
2607
47.5
2. Sales revenue/ sales income (Self- employed)
563
10.2
3. Forests and agricultural resources
1618
29.4
4. Other (family members giving, dividend, bonus, rental and
services)
270
4.9

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
Subtotal (RM)
5,057
92
B. In-kind income
Subtotal (RM)
430
8
TOTAL (RM)
5,486
100
Source: Fieldwork data (community survey), 2020
The monthly income of households in the villages near GTFR reflects the socioeconomic status of the rural communities. Overall, the
highest distribution of cash income is from employment income as a paid employee (47.5%) as in Table 3. The forest and agricultural
sectors contributed 29.4%, while sales revenue, businessman, and self-employees resulted in 10.2% of the cash income distribution.
When compared to Johor (the southernmost state in Peninsular Malaysia) forests and agricultural income contributes to only 21.5% of
the cash income source and only 0.6% for an in-kind income source (Abdullah et al., 2021).
There are two types of income namely cash income and in-kind income. Cash income includes earnings from employment, businesses
and other sources of income received in cash including forest-related such as the sales or business-related to forestry, agriculture, food
and beverages business and ecotourism. The non-cash income or known as in-kind income contributed 8% of the average monthly
income of the households interviewed. Results found that the local community average monthly household’s income was RM 5, 486
per month (Table 3). The average income is near to the average household monthly income for Besut district in 2019 (RM 5,819) and
the rural Terengganu state's average income of RM 5,742 in 2019. This finding differed slightly from the case study in Johor (southern
region of Peninsular Malaysia), which found that the average monthly household income in the local community was RM3,410, while
the average monthly household income in rural Malaysia was RM 3,080 in 2020 (Abdullah et al., 2021).
The agriculture sources include paddy crops, cash crops such as vegetables, rubber, oil palm, orchard products, animal livestock, fish
and seafood. The main sources of income to the local communities near GTFR have been acknowledged from the two major cash
crops that were rubber estate and oil palm plantation. Even though in Peninsular Malaysia that the conversion and scenario of forested
land into the two major cash crops has been identified as driving significant to the environmental change, this is no doubt for the local
communities to gain a fast-track cash income from these agricultural activities. This research confirmed previous findings in Malawi
that rural daily essential needs has relied on both agricultural and forest income (Kamanga et al., 2009). Forest has been acknowledged
for its contribution especially to the total income of rural dwellers (Van Chu et al., 2019); through the sale and exchange of forest
products or goods (Aju, 2014). Meanwhile, in-kind income refers to income other than money such as properties (etc., house,
transports and other vehicles) and forest resources consumed by households such as food sources and water intake. The findings
showed that, in terms of income types, the local communities had higher cash income compared to in-kind income.
The source of income based on the type of household occupation
Table 4. Type of occupation of the head of household (n=380)
Type of main occupation
Frequency
Percentage (%)
Employed
110
28.9
1
Government services/ Public sector
39
10.3
2
Private sectors
39
10.3
3
Chalet/Resort staff
1
0.3
4
Factory staff/ Industrial workers
1
0.3
5
Contract staff
28
7.4
6
Others
2
0.5
Sales revenue and self-employment
103
27.1

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
7
Own a self-business
32
8.4
8
Store dealer/small business and shop owners and retailers
6
1.6
9
Food and beverages stall business
21
5.5
10
Self-employed/Freelance
44
11.6
Forests and agriculture sources
135
35.5
11
Cash crop farmer
19
5.0
12
Rubber tapper
43
11.3
13
Orchard/Farm worker producer
1
0.3
14
Oil Palm plantation owners
51
13.4
15
Livestock farmers
1
0.3
16
Fish producers- fisherman
2
0.5
17
Paddy field – farmers or rice producers
18
4.7
Not employed (No working)
32
8.4
Source: Field community survey, 2020
Local livelihood adjacent to GTFR had varieties of occupations to sustain their livings. Some of them are employed as general
workers, government servants and contract staff (28.9%). Table 4 showed that the majority of the household depends on the forests
and agriculture resources (36%) and is mostly involved in the oil palm plantation (51%) and rubber crop or estates (43%). While for
the unemployed including pensioners, housewives and no working household only accounted for 32%.
This finding demonstrated the importance of agricultural resources to their daily livelihood, as agriculture be their essential food
resource. The study results revealed that, while most households were highly dependent on modern living as paid salary workers, a
minority (35.5%) were dependent on forests, mainly through forest income including cash crop and vegetable farmers, orchard owners,
livestock farming, fish and seafood producers and paddy farmers. This is consistent with the findings of Porro et al. (2015), who found
that agricultural and forest-based economic strategies in Ucayali-Peruvian communities, the households shared “forest income”
through forest goods and environmental income and revenues from fishing and agricultural income relied on livestock and animal
products (except fish). The total income sources are defined through the forest, fish, agriculture, livestock, wages, business (Porro et
al., 2015).
The uniqueness and varieties of agriculture and recreation activities surrounding GTFR indicate multiple options for forest and
landscape restoration. Locals had an opportunity focused on the agricultural segment for a wide variety of purposes that enhance their
livelihood, and help them to purchase food and other vital necessities. Otherwise, some of the communities assessed their food sources
from the total amount of cash crop trees production, from their fruit orchard or vegetable farm, as a fisherman and also as livestock
farmers. There was also a minority group (11.6%) who worked as a daily forest producer or self-employed that obtained the wild foods
gathered and hunted from the adjacent forest. This finding supports the role of forests in natural resource conservation, production and
at the same time maintaining biodiversity.
The relationships between forest communities, income and employment have been debated thoroughly in previous studies. Forests
which are classified as natural capital are used as the main source in generating income through employment related to forest and
environmental products including the use of fuelwood for cooking (FAO, 1989, Vedeld and Sjaastad, 2009), agriculture activities (Aju,
2014; Van Chu et al., 2019), fishing, livestock and animal-derived products, wages, and business (Porro et al., 2015). Forests use and
environmental products including fish have been revealed to enhance about 40% of annual income among livelihood in Ucayali, Peru.
It showed a strong indicator that income from the forest is higher compared to other sources such as agriculture (25%, wages (17%)
and livestock and animal products (11%) for both indigenous communities and non- Amazonian settlers in the Peruvian region (Porro
et al., 2015).

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
The monthly income contribution to the number of households
The monthly household income indicates the local economic situation and is an important proxy for the measurement of
socioeconomic status or standard of living. In this section, the result showed the number of households who perceived their monthly
income directly from the forest reserve and contribution. The contribution is calculated based on the percentage of a household
number.
Therefore, the household income refers to receipts (whether monetary or material), that are earned repeatedly and accrued (confirmed
received) on a weekly, monthly or annual basis and used to meet current needs. In this context, the number of income recipients in the
adjacent GTFR on average is 2 people (Figure 2), compared to 1.9 for the average number of income recipients in the state of
Terengganu in 2019. Households with only one income recipient recorded the largest percentage composition with 45.9%. This was
followed by two income recipients (28.6%) and three income recipients (9.5%). Meanwhile, households with four income earners and
more accounted for 6.2%. Income received individually was usually shared with other household members and forms the household
income.
Figure 2: Percentage of households by the number of recipients’ income
In Malaysia, the household head is typically a man or husband who serves as the pillars of a family and a culture for local Malay
tradition. However, for the better and livelihood strategies, eradication of poverty and enhance wealth in the rural communities, the
role of women and youth should also be considered. Women and youth should be given more support and opportunities in long-term
planning for food security and rural livelihoods. Women play a prominent role in the food availability and marketing strategies of
selling forest foods (Roy and Deepika, 2020). Since then, the household could sustain their livelihoods and are substantially reliant on
forests and agriculture sectors. It is notably that forests are essential not only providing their basic needs, thus also contribute to cash
savings and safety nets (Shackleton et al. 2007). In a developing country, the forest is an important source of energy, employment,
medicine and other subsistence needs for the majority of local communities (Bahuguna, 2000).
In Malaysia, these results also contributed to one of the main important roles of social forestry in the country. This paper revealed that
forest and agriculture crucially have contributed to the livelihood of local communities in GTFR. Despite the results of Table 3 and
Table 4 showed a small contribution (from income level generation), the forest-dependent communities in Malaysia continue to play a
significant role in promoting conservation of natural resources, environmental protection and utilizing forest resources sustainably.
CONCLUSIONS
The study was set out to explore the current situation of the community’s forest dependency and the role of forests in the community's
economic well-being. The forest and the community have developed a significant relationship or mutual dependency as a result of their
involvement. To answer the contribution of forest to food security at GTFR, the results showed the forest contributed to the local
communities and they benefited from forest contributions in various ways. The dependency of the local people on forest resources
could be extending to the indirect benefits too. In this research, it was determined that the multiple dimensions of forest goods included
earning cash and total income, improving employment standards and uplift the living standard of locals. The locals perceived the
monthly incomes through the agricultural resources sector. The average monthly household income was RM 5, 486 per month, which
was closed to the average household monthly income for Besut district in 2019 (RM 5,81) and RM 5,742 average for Rural
Terengganu state in 2019. While in-kind income contributed 8% or RM 430 for the average monthly income in the 380 surveyed
households. These benefits made forests fundamental to the livelihoods and well-being of people, not only for the people who live in

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
them but also for those living in peripheral landscapes. Thus, the forest and its resources showed a direct and indirect contribution to
the community’s food securities. In this article, some recommendations can be outdrawn. The local government's action plan must be
strengthened to improve the livelihoods of rural residents, including rural women. The diversity of rural women’s participation is
important because they are well known for growing crops in the backyard of houses and ensuring the food stock availability to the
entire family, their survival is essential for ensuring food security. The variation on forest dependency can be contributed to the local
management and conservation strategies as key factors in the planning, designing and implementation of future programs and activities
for forest sustainability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Our deep thanks to enumerators and local informants including who brought their contributions to this paper, and for kindly sharing
ideas, comments and suggestions. Special thanks to the Mr Wan Radzi and project team from Terengganu Forestry State Department
for providing support during our field-work. This research was funded by The 11th Malaysia Plan under Forest Research Institute
Malaysia, Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources (KeTSA) in collaboration with the Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia
(FDPM).
REFERENCES
Abdullah, M., Mamat, M. P. & Tuan Hussain, F. N. (2021). The contribution of forests on food security and rural poverty: A current
status in Johor. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Science, 756 012090.
Abdullah, R., Acciaioli, G., Ramle, N.H., & Mat Rasat, M.S. (2014). Forest significant and conservation among the Semaq Beri Tribe
of Orang Asli in Terengganu State, Malaysia. American Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 8 (7): 386-395.
Aju, P. C. (2014). The role of forestry in agriculture and food security. American Journal of Research Communication, 2(6), 109-121.
Bahuguna V. K. (2000). Forests in the economy of the rural poor: an estimation of the dependency level. AMBIO: A Journal of the
Human Environment, 29(3), 126–129.
Calder, I., Hofer, T., Vermont, S., & Warren, P. (2008). Towards a new understanding of forests and water. UNASYLVA-FAO, 229,
3.
Dao, T.H.T. and Holsher, D. (2018). Impact of non-timber forest product use on the tree community in North-Western Vietnam.
Forestst, 9 (431), 1-15.
Dhakal, B., H. Bigsby, and R. Cullen. (2011). Forests for food security and livelihood sustainability: Policy problems and opportunities
for small farmers in Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 35(1), 86–115.
DOSM. Department of Statistics. (2019). Department of Statistics Malaysia, https://www.dosm.gov.my.
FAO. (1989). Chapter 2. Wood energy and livelihoods. http://www.fao.org/3/V9728E/v9728e03.htm.
FAO (2003). Trade reforms and Food Security. Conceptualizing the linkages. Rome: FAO.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y4671e/y4671e00.pdf.
Ferrarro PJ and Hanauer MM. (2011). Protecting ecosystems and alleviating poverty with parks and reserves: “win-win” or tradeoffs?.
Environmental Resource Economics, 48, 269–286.
Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia (2019). Annual Forestry Report for Peninsular Malaysia. Ministry of Water, Land and
Natural Resources. Malaysia, 94.
Forestry Department of Peninsular Malaysia. (2020). Forest types. Retrieved from: https://www.forestry.gov.my/en/2016-06-07-02-31-
39/2016-06-07-02-35-17/forest-type.
Kamanga, P., Vedeld, P., & Sjaastad, E. (2009). Forest incomes and rural livelihoods in Chiradzulu District, Malawi. Ecological
Economics, 68(3), 613-624.
Mok (1992). Article 1. Potential for sustainable tropical forest management in Malaysia http://www.fao.org/3/u6010e/u6010e07.htm.
Nelson, J., Muhammed, N., & Rashid, R.A. (2015). Community’s forest dependency and its effects towards the forest resources and
wildlife abundances in Sarawak, Malaysia. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 22, 401 - 412.

International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation (IJAFP), Volume 12, September 2021, ISSN: 2462-1757
Park, H., Turner, N. & Higgs, E. 2017. Exploring the potential of food forestry to assist in ecological restoration in North America and
beyond. Restoration Ecology, 26, 284-293.
Porro, R, Lopez-Feldman, A. & Vela-Alvarado, J. (2015). Forest use and agriculture in Ucayali, Peru: Livelihood strategies, poverty
and wealth in an Amazon frontier. Forest Policy and Economics. 51. 47-56. 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.12.001.
Roy E., Deepika, P .2020. Role of women and youth in food security and rural livelihood. International Journal of Agriculture
Extension and Social Development, 3(2), 68-70.
Shackleton CM, Shackleton SE, Buiten E, Bird N. (2007). The importance of dry woodlands and forests in rural livelihoods and
poverty alleviation in South Africa. Forest Policy Econ, 9(5), 558–577.
Sulaiman, N., Mohd Bakri, M. A., Kahar, K. M., Yaacob, M. Z., & Boler, I. (2014). Moth fauna (Lepidoptera: Heterocera) of Gunung
Tebu Forest Reserve, Terengganu, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal, 66(4), 376–389.
Sumarli AX, Grismer LL, Anuar S, Muin MA, Quah ES, 2015. First report on the amphibians and reptiles of a remote mountain,
Gunung Tebu in northeastern Peninsular Malaysia. Check List 11:1679.
Terengganu Forest Department (2019). Annual Forestry Report for Terengganu. Ministry of Water, Land and Natural Resources.
Malaysia, 40-41.
Van Chu, T.V., Thoai, T.Q., An, C.Q., Toai, P.M., Camacho, L.D., & Sâm, H. (2019). Contribution of forest to rural households’
livelihood: evidences from Da river basin in the northwest mountainous region of Vietnam. Forest and Society,3(2), 235-247.