The lack of professional and personal opportunities for both the older and younger generations in the rural forest areas means that the forests are their primary source of revenue.
This leads to 3 possible scenarios:
1) Selling forests to palm oil companies or other developers
2) Turning primary and secondary forests into productive forests, plantations, rice paddies
3) Urban migration to the capital or possibly a second major city in the region
Urban migration is largely composed of members of the new generation. The old generation is left with the possibility of continuing agriculture. Without the help of the new generation, the intensive labor involved and the low revenues generated, selling the forests to palm oil companies or other developers becomes a very interesting and easy alternative.
Members of the new generation upon migrating to the cities then consider 3 possible development trajectories:
1) return home to seek a nonagricultural job, usually become low-level workers (preferred outcome)
2) settle in cities, usually low-level workers or small business owners (slightly less preferred)
3) return home to farm (by far the least preferred outcome)
Members of the new generation still have ties to their ancestral home (parental, cultural, emotional, memories) and thus the forest, but have a strong desire to do non-farm work so returning home to seek a nonagricultural job is the most important planned trajectory.
On one hand, if the new generation must resort to returning home and farm, they are likely to support the choice of selling the forests.
On the other hand, if the new generation decides to settle in the cities, their children (future generation) will have no personal and less cultural ties with the ancestral home or forests, further inclining the old generation to sell the forests. If the old generation does not sell, then most likely the future generation will because it will consider the forests as just a commodity not as an essential part of their heritage.