Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Brief Description of CHT’s Land Use Context
2.2. Approaches to Data Collection and Analysis
2.3. Limitations of the Research
3. Results
3.1. Preferred ES for the Well-Being
3.2. Land Use Preferences for ES to Support the Well-Being
3.3. Land Use Preferences for ES under Different Ownership Contexts
4. Discussion
4.1. Valuing ES for Well-Being
4.2. ES Value Associated with Different Land Uses
5. Conclusions and Future Directions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).
- Ehrlich, P.R.; Mooney, H.A. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 1983, 33, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Daily, G.C. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Costanza, R.; d’Arge, R.; De Groot, R.; Farber, S.; Grasso, M.; Hannon, B.; Limburg, K.; Naeem, S.; O’neill, R.V.; Paruelo, J.; et al. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 1997, 387, 253–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, U.; Muradian, R.; Brander, L.; Gómez-Baggethun, E.; Martín-López, B.; Verma, M.; Armsworth, P.; Christie, M.; Cornelissen, H.; Eppink, F.; et al. The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 183–256. [Google Scholar]
- Haines-Young, R.; Potschin-Young, M. Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): A policy brief. One Ecosyst. 2018, 3, e27108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- United Nations (UN). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 2015. Available online: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?OpenElement (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Bratman, G.N.; Anderson, C.B.; Berman, M.G.; Cochran, B.; De Vries, S.; Flanders, J.; Folke, C.; Frumkin, H.; Gross, J.J.; Hartig, T.; et al. Nature and mental health: An ecosystem service perspective. Sci. Adv. 2019, 5, eaax0903. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE). Sustainable Forestry for Food Security and Nutrition. Rome, Italy. 2017. Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/i7395e/i7395e.pdf (accessed on 1 June 2022).
- Mandle, L.; Shields-Estrada, A.; Chaplin-Kramer, R.; Mitchell, M.G.; Bremer, L.L.; Gourevitch, J.D.; Hawthorne, P.; Johnson, J.A.; Robinson, B.E.; Smith, J.R.; et al. Increasing decision relevance of ecosystem service science. Nat. Sustain. 2021, 4, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, X.; Dong, X.; Liu, H.; Wei, H.; Fan, W.; Lu, N.; Xu, Z.; Ren, J.; Xing, K. Linking land use change, ecosystem services and human well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 113–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangha, K.K.; Preece, L.; Villarreal-Rosas, J.; Kegamba, J.J.; Paudyal, K.; Warmenhoven, T.; RamaKrishnan, P.S. An ecosystem services framework to evaluate Indigenous and local peoples’ connections with nature. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandhu, H.; Sandhu, S. Linking ecosystem services with the constituents of human well-being for poverty alleviation in eastern Himalayas. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duguma, L.A.; Hager, H. Farmers’ assessment of the social and ecological values of land uses in central highland Ethiopia. Environ. Manag. 2011, 47, 969–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lau, J.D.; Hicks, C.C.; Gurney, G.G.; Cinner, J.E. Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, and education. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T.C. Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods of Chittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Gunawan, B.; Takeuchi, K. Living close to forests enhances people׳ s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benra, F.; Nahuelhual, L. A trilogy of inequalities: Land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution. Land Use Policy 2019, 82, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hasan, S.S.; Zhen, L.; Miah, M.G.; Ahamed, T.; Samie, A. Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environ. Dev. 2020, 34, 100527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pascual, U.; Balvanera, P.; Díaz, S.; Pataki, G.; Roth, E.; Stenseke, M.; Watson, R.T.; Dessane, E.B.; Islar, M.; Kelemen, E.; et al. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Díaz, S.; Pascual, U.; Stenseke, M.; Martín-López, B.; Watson, R.T.; Molnár, Z.; Hill, R.; Chan, K.M.; Baste, I.A.; Brauman, K.A.; et al. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 2018, 359, 270–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adams, H.; Adger, W.N.; Ahmad, S.; Ahmed, A.; Begum, D.; Matthews, Z.; Rahman, M.M.; Nilsen, K.; Gurney, G.G.; Streatfield, P.K. Multi-dimensional well-being associated with economic dependence on ecosystem services in deltaic social-ecological systems of Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Analysis of forest-related policies for supporting ecosystem services-based forest management in Bangladesh. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 48, 101235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BBS 2016. Statistical Pocket Book 2016. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/84971290-en (accessed on 20 August 2020).
- Xu, X.; Shrestha, S.; Gilani, H.; Gumma, M.K.; Siddiqui, B.N.; Jain, A.K. Dynamics and drivers of land use and land cover changes in Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Eddy, I.M.; Tomscha, S.A.; Sunderland, T.C. Recent trends of forest cover change and ecosystem services in eastern upland region of Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 647, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N. Forest and agrarian change in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh. In Agrarian Change in Tropical Landscapes; CIFOR: Bogor Regency, Indonesia, 2016; pp. 191–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Assessing land use changes and livelihood outcomes of rural people in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region, Bangladesh. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 32, 3626–3638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olander, L.P.; Johnston, R.J.; Tallis, H.; Kagan, J.; Maguire, L.A.; Polasky, S.; Urban, D.; Boyd, J.; Wainger, L.; Palmer, M. 2018. Benefit relevant indicators: Ecosystem services measures that link ecological and social outcomes. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 85, 1262–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Determinants of forest and tree uses across households of different sites and ethnicities in Bangladesh. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2021, 17, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Islam, S.M.; Alam, M.; Mantel, S. Land use planning and environmental control in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In CHARM Project Report 3; CHARM Project: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007; Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/296235 (accessed on 22 November 2022).
- Rahman, S.A.; Sunderland, T.; Roshetko, J.M.; Healey, J.R. Facilitating smallholder tree farming in fragmented tropical landscapes: Challenges and potentials for sustainable land management. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 198, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bala, B.K.; Majumder, S.; Altaf Hossain, S.M.; Haque, M.A.; Hossain, M.A. Exploring development strategies of agricultural systems of Hill Tracts of Chittagong in Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 949–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nath, T.K.; Inoue, M. The upland settlement project of Bangladesh as a means of reducing land degradation and improving rural livelihoods. Small-Scale For. 2008, 7, 163–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammad, R.; Hossain, M.K.; Sobhan, I.; Hasan, R.; Biswas, S.R.; Mukul, S.A. Social, ecological and institutional factors affecting forest and landscape restoration in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 2023, 125, 106478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD), 2016. District Wise Forest Land of Bangladesh. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. Available online: http://www.bforest.gov.bd/site/page/837e6966-0fce-4274-a0d0-bcdfa49ce492/- (accessed on 2 October 2022).
- Liswanti, N.; Basuki, I. Guidelines for Adapted Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment Methods for Fire Management Projects in India; CIFOR: Bogor Regency, Indonesia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Sheil, D.; Puri, R.K.; Basuki, I.; van Heist, M.; Wan, M.; Liswanti, N.; Sardjono, M.A.; Samsoedin, I.; Sidiyasa, K.; Permana, E.; et al. Exploring Biological Diversity, Environment, and Local People’s Perspectives in Forest Landscapes: Methods for a Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment; CIFOR: Bogor Regency, Indonesia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Villamor, G.B.; Palomo, I.; Santiago, C.A.L.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Hill, J. Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions and values towards social-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecol. Process. 2014, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sunderland, T.; Abdoulaye, R.; Ahammad, R.; Asaha, S.; Baudron, F.; Deakin, E.; Duriaux, J.-Y.; Eddy, I.; Foli, S.; Gumbo, D.; et al. A methodological approach for assessing cross-site landscape change: Understanding socio-ecological systems. For. Policy Econ. 2017, 84, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawson, N.; Martin, A. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in western Rwanda. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 62–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hamann, M.; Biggs, R.; Reyers, B. Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’and ‘red-loop’dynamics based on characteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 34, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ickowitz, A.; McMullin, S.; Rosenstock, T.; Dawson, I.; Rowland, D.; Powell, B.; Mausch, K.; Djoudi, H.; Sunderland, T.; Nurhasan, M.; et al. Transforming food systems with trees and forests. Lancet Planet. Health 2022, 6, e632–e639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ehara, M.; Hyakumura, K.; Nomura, H.; Matsuura, T.; Sokh, H.; Leng, C. Identifying characteristics of households affected by deforestation in their fuelwood and non-timber forest product collections: Case study in Kampong Thom Province, Cambodia. Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Noordwijk, M.; Ekadinata, A.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.; Martini, E.; Tata, H.L.; Öborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Wangpakapattanawong, P.; Mulia, R.; et al. Agroforestry options for degraded landscapes in Southeast Asia. In Agroforestry for Degraded Landscapes: Recent Advances and Emerging Challenges; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2020; pp. 307–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villamagna, A.; Giesecke, C. Adapting human well-being frameworks for ecosystem service assessments across diverse landscapes. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leong, K.M.; Wongbusarakum, S.; Ingram, R.J.; Mawyer, A.; Poe, M.R. Improving representation of human well-being and cultural importance in conceptualizing the West Hawai ‘i Ecosystem. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Torralba, M.; Lovrić, M.; Roux, J.L.; Budniok, M.A.; Mulier, A.S.; Winkel, G.; Plieninger, T. Examining the relevance of cultural ecosystem services in forest management in Europe. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sangha, K.K.; Le Brocque, A.; Costanza, R.; Cadet-James, Y. Ecosystems and indigenous well-being: An integrated framework. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2015, 4, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- West, S.; Haider, L.J.; Stålhammar, S.; Woroniecki, S. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leverage points and transformations. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 304–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahammad, R. Recent Trends in Forest and Livelihood Relationships of Rural Communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Region, Bangladesh. Ph.D. Thesis, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Australia, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, L.V.; Fagan, M.E.; Ickowitz, A.; Wood, S.L.; Kennedy, G.; Powell, B.; Baudron, F.; Gergel, S.; Jung, S.; Smithwick, E.A.; et al. Forest pattern, not just amount, influences dietary quality in five African countries. Glob. Food Secur. 2020, 25, 100331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausner, V.H.; Brown, G.; Lægreid, E. Effects of land tenure and protected areas on ecosystem services and land use preferences in Norway. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 446–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kumar, A.; Ekka, P.; Patra, S.; Kumar, G.; Kishore, B.S.; Kumar, R.; Saikia, P. Geospatial Perspectives of Sustainable Forest Management to Enhance Ecosystem Services and Livelihood Security. In Advances in Remote Sensing for Forest Monitoring; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 10–42. [Google Scholar]
- Leary, J.; Grimm, K.; Aslan, C.; Mark, M.; Frey, S.; Bath-Rosenfeld, R. Landowners’ Socio-Cultural Valuation of Ecosystem Services Provided by Trees in Costa Rican Agricultural Landscapes. Environ. Manag. 2021, 67, 974–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
District | Forest Department Managed | District Government Controlled | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Reserved Forests (ha) | USF Lands (ha) | USF Lands (ha) | Total Forest Land (ha) by District | |
Bandarban | 107,095 | 15,646 | 200,151 | 322,892 |
Rangamati | 248,855 | 309,267 | 558,122 | |
Khagrachari | 38,800 | 1702 | 183,837 | 224,339 |
Total forest | 394,750 | 17,348 | 693,255 | 1,105,353 |
% of total forest area | 35.71% | 1.57% | 62.72% | 100% |
Remote | Intermediate | On-Road | |
---|---|---|---|
Name of villages |
|
|
|
Ethnicity of inhabitants |
|
|
|
Population density (per sq. km.) | 38 | 62 | 176 |
Land use types |
|
|
|
Land ownership |
|
|
|
Location (distance to sub-district/district market) |
|
|
|
ES Preference | Reason for Preference | Relevance for Well-Being Components (Following MA, 2005) |
---|---|---|
Timber, bamboo and grass for housebuilding/construction | Locally available raw materials, low-cost and traditional knowledge in building housing | Safe shelter |
Protection from soil erosion and fertility | Reduce soil erosion for crop production and protection from landslides | Ability to reduce ecological stress such as landslides associated with soil erosion |
Water | Water only sourced from springs, creeks adjacent to forest | Adequate water for use |
Fuel wood | Mainly used for cooking and boiling water | Ability to secure energy use |
Spiritual benefits | Worship and peaceful living | Cultural and spiritual benefits |
Food | Crops cultivated; gathered from the forest and adjacent wild environment | Adequate foodAdequate nutrition |
Livestock food | Availability of food for livestock grazing | Adequate food for livestock |
Primary medicine | Available plant materials and traditional knowledge associated with healing practices | Ability to avoid disease |
Access to income |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T.; Sangha, K.K. Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Forests 2022, 13, 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122086
Ahammad R, Stacey N, Sunderland T, Sangha KK. Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Forests. 2022; 13(12):2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122086
Chicago/Turabian StyleAhammad, Ronju, Natasha Stacey, Terry Sunderland, and Kamaljit K. Sangha. 2022. "Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh" Forests 13, no. 12: 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122086
APA StyleAhammad, R., Stacey, N., Sunderland, T., & Sangha, K. K. (2022). Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Forests, 13(12), 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122086