Forestry, Faculty of
Non UBC
DSpace
Ahammad, Ronju
Stacey, Natasha
Sunderland, Terry C. H.
Sangha, Kamaljit K.
Researchers increasingly investigate ecosystem services to assess their role in supporting livelihoods, well-being and economic value in order to inform decision-making. Many studies have explored links between ecosystem services and community-based livelihoods, with a very narrow focus on the importance of land use to well-being. We evaluated the value of ecosystem services from various land uses supporting livelihoods and the overall well-being of local communities in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh. By applying a participatory habitat valuation approach with the ethnic communities from eight villages, we explored their preferences for, and perceptions of, ecosystem services and their sources in a multi-functional landscape under different land use, i.e., forest, swidden and low-land agriculture, fruit orchard and water bodies, and three land ownership contexts (state, private and mixed ownership on forest lands). Our findings revealed that community land use preference for ecosystem services supports ten different well-being needs. Among others, forests were valued land used for two-thirds of well-being needs, including the provision of shelter, nutrition, primary health care, an adequate supply of potable water, a lower level of ecological stress (i.e., protection from associated landslide soil erosion), cultural and spiritual benefits and livestock foraging. People commonly valued the food, income and nutrition contributions of all land uses. However, different forest and land ownership contexts and rights within the landscape influence people’s preference for ecosystem services from land use in supporting their well-being. People with secure ownership (i.e., private and private-community) showed a broad and positive appreciation for ecosystem services to meet their well-being needs. Our study highlights that local and ethnic people’s land-use preferences and ownership contexts are critical factors in assessing well-being in the context of multifunctional landscapes. We recommend that ecosystem services be considered in future decision-making related to forest and land use to support human well-being.
Citation: Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.;Sunderland, T.; Sangha, K.K. LandUse Preference for EcosystemServices and Well-Being inChittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh.Forests 2022, 13, 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122086Academic Editor: Radu-Daniel PintiliiReceived: 2 November 2022Accepted: 5 December 2022Published: 7 December 2022Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutralwith regard to jurisdictional claims inpublished maps and institutional affil-iations.Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.This article is an open access articledistributed under the terms andconditions of the Creative CommonsAttribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).ArticleLand Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being inChittagong Hill Tracts of BangladeshRonju Ahammad 1,* , Natasha Stacey 2 , Terry Sunderland 3,4 and Kamaljit K. Sangha 21 Department of Forest Economics, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 90183 Umea, Sweden2 Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin 0909, Australia3 Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada4 Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor 16115, Indonesia* Correspondence: ronju.ahammad@slu.se or ronj.ahammad@gmail.comAbstract: Researchers increasingly investigate ecosystem services to assess their role in supportinglivelihoods, well-being and economic value in order to inform decision-making. Many studies haveexplored links between ecosystem services and community-based livelihoods, with a very narrowfocus on the importance of land use to well-being. We evaluated the value of ecosystem servicesfrom various land uses supporting livelihoods and the overall well-being of local communities in theChittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh. By applying a participatory habitat valuation approachwith the ethnic communities from eight villages, we explored their preferences for, and perceptions of,ecosystem services and their sources in a multi-functional landscape under different land use, i.e., for-est, swidden and low-land agriculture, fruit orchard and water bodies, and three land ownershipcontexts (state, private and mixed ownership on forest lands). Our findings revealed that communityland use preference for ecosystem services supports ten different well-being needs. Among others,forests were valued land used for two-thirds of well-being needs, including the provision of shelter,nutrition, primary health care, an adequate supply of potable water, a lower level of ecological stress(i.e., protection from associated landslide soil erosion), cultural and spiritual benefits and livestockforaging. People commonly valued the food, income and nutrition contributions of all land uses.However, different forest and land ownership contexts and rights within the landscape influencepeople’s preference for ecosystem services from land use in supporting their well-being. People withsecure ownership (i.e., private and private-community) showed a broad and positive appreciationfor ecosystem services to meet their well-being needs. Our study highlights that local and ethnicpeople’s land-use preferences and ownership contexts are critical factors in assessing well-being inthe context of multifunctional landscapes. We recommend that ecosystem services be considered infuture decision-making related to forest and land use to support human well-being.Keywords: valuation of ecosystem services; forest and land tenure; forest ecosystem services; landscapevalue; livelihoods; landscape multifunctionality1. IntroductionEcosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from ecosystem function [1].Over the last four decades, the ES concept has been widely used in ecological, economicand social sciences to assess the state of ecosystem states and its various values [1–6]. Theconcept and its application has broadened methodological dimensions to evaluate themultiple and total values of ecosystem services. Globally the assessment of ES has beenan essential tool to inform and integrate the importance of natural systems in policy forfacilitating conservation, poverty reduction, food security and the overall achievement ofthe Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [1,7–11]. Despite progress in research, mainlyaddressing the basic livelihood needs of rural people from tangible ecosystem benefits,predominantly provisioning ES (i.e., food, fibre, energy, construction materials for shelter)Forests 2022, 13, 2086. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13122086 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/forestsForests 2022, 13, 2086 2 of 17in developing countries are the focus of many studies today. By contrast, many intangiblebenefits, including those provided by regulation and cultural services that contributesignificantly to regulating air and water quality, and various social and cultural aspects ofpeople’s well-being, are less understood [12].Land use provides a wide range of well-being needs by making ecosystem goods and ser-vices available locally, regionally and globally. Land-use change can result in an improvementof one aspect of well-being, such as the economy, while causing a decline in several regulating,supporting and other ecosystem functions vital for sustaining community well-being [13].A better understanding of how people’s well-being is linked to ES is essential to sustain-ably using and managing different land resources [14,15]. With varying types of land use,ecosystem benefits differ even within rural populations, depending on people’s knowledge,use and management of resources, and geographical location and context [16–21]. Althoughconsiderable research has been undertaken on land use change and ecosystem services, suchstudies have tended to focus on general valuations rather than understanding the differencesin values attached to specific land uses within a landscape, e.g., [13,18,21].People’s utilisation of different land uses mainly relates to the ownership contexts inwhich they access natural resources and management [20]. Institutional processes, such asownership rights and governance of land resources and usage, determine access for localcommunities, which can further impact the distribution of ecosystem services/benefitsacross spatial scales. Institutions related to land tenure imply the significant need for na-ture/ecosystem benefits in a specific social-ecological context and their roles in ecosystemmanagement [20,21]. The context-specific perspective of the people and nature relationshipoften follows a different use of natural resources and knowledge systems within geograph-ically and culturally defined settings [22,23]. Thereby incorporating ecosystem serviceswithin land use policies relies on people’s ability to secure ownership. This is particularlycritical for land ownership contexts in swidden agriculture-dominated landscapes whereforest-based land tenure rights influence people’s preferences for land use coupled withdecisions for ensuring the sustainable provision of ES.Due to over-population and an ever-growing demand for food production and set-tlement, Bangladesh has the long-standing challenge in sustainably managing naturalresources, including forests [24,25]. By 2050, the population in Bangladesh will be 270million, increasing challenges for the country to meet commitments towards SDGs [26].Although forests and other land uses can contribute to achieving several SDGs relatedto poverty, health and food and nutrition, among others, unsustainable use and misman-agement of forest and tree-related agro-ecosystems pose a severe threat to food security.Over the past decades, forestland has decreased by 9%, barren land increased by 41.06%,settlement by 32.52%, shrubland by 21.76%, and standing waterbodies by 8.63% [27].With increased competing contexts between forests, trees and other land uses, ecosystemservice-based land management in particular offers a critical solution to meet people’swell-being needs [25,28]. However, the disproportionate land ownership, social inequality,and environmental constraints associated with natural disasters influence the level of foodproduction, especially for the rural population, in achieving a range of ecosystem benefitsrequired for material and non-material well-being needs.The south-eastern upland Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) contain a unique socio-ecological landscape inhabited by 12 different ethnic groups demonstrating a long tra-dition of forest and swidden agriculture land use [29]. Recent studies have highlightedthe importance of forest ecosystem services and the contribution of traditional agriculture(i.e., swidden farming) to the livelihoods of local ethnic people as entirely or partly meetingtheir daily, basic material and non-material needs [18,28,29]. However, these studies reporta limited recognition of ethnic people’s rights to the forest, agricultural land (swiddenfarm and low-lying land use) or fruit orchards in the policies for the region and an un-dervaluation of the role of ecosystem services in sustaining people’s well-being [18,28,29].Lacking an understanding of the diverse ES values associated with land use generallycan lead to conflict over natural resource management and the involvement of the localForests 2022, 13, 2086 3 of 17ethnic population within forest management in particular. Historically, forest clearinginvolved in the swidden farming process was considered the driver of deforestation in theregion [28]. However, ineffective forest policies primarily driven by commercial plantationswith timber trees and fruit orchards replacing native vegetation have also contributed toforest loss, often more extensively. Thus, today, forest and land tenure rights assignedto the local ethnic communities have not improved their long-term ability to access landuses or meet their livelihood and well-being needs [30]. As such, the preference of ethnicpeoples for forests and other land uses concerning their well-being are currently thwartedor poorly understood.In this study, we evaluate the perceived ES value of various land uses (mainly for-est, swidden and low-lying agricultural land, fruit orchards and water bodies) for theircontributions to the well-being of rural ethnic communities in the CHT region. Our studyaddressed two questions. Firstly, do the perceived ES values differ between land use?Secondly, is the perceived value of ES from different land uses associated with forest andland ownership? By addressing these questions, this study identifies the well-being benefitsrural communities derive from land uses under different forest and land tenure contexts.We consider that assessing the value attached by local ethnic communities to ecosystemservices will be essential for understanding their well-being needs and their long-terminterest in improved forest and land management [31].2. Materials and Methods2.1. Brief Description of CHT’s Land Use ContextThe CHT region contains 10% of the country’s total land and almost 40% of theforestlands [32]: Figure 1. Forests account for just over 30% of the land use in the region,although, in the CHT, less than a quarter is natural forest. Secondary forests, mixed withnatural and planted trees, sparsely distributed trees and bamboo, are widespread in theregion. Throughout the 19–20th century, planted forests with teak (Tectona grandis) andfast-growing species such as gamar (Gmelina arborea) expanded across the region driven bycolonial and state policy for commercial harvesting and, later, increased plantation goals.This process of plantation impacted local ethnic people by converting the agricultural lands,mainly swidden farms, into monoculture tree plots. At least twelve ethnic groups relyon forests to meet their food needs, mainly leafy vegetables and fruits, fuel wood andconstruction materials. Despite this forest reliance, minimal tenure rights exist within thelocal ethnic population to access forestland, including planted land uses across the region.Agriculture land use in the CHT is constrained due to hilly and medium to steepslope topography over two-thirds of the land [33]. Swidden farming along the hillslopes(also referred to as shifting cultivation) is the predominant agriculture land use practice(16% of the land use) for local people. This land use was traditionally managed for annualcrop cultivation followed by a fallow period of 10–15 years, but has recently declineddue to limited availability of land, lower productivity and insecure land tenure. Earlyassessments erroneously report that swidden agriculture land use only contributes tosubsistence level production, has no significant economic benefit and causes forest loss andsoil erosion [29,33,34]. However, this land use provides some critical form of provisioningservices for food sources managed with traditional knowledge depending on the socialand ecological contexts of the rural population [30]. Besides the swidden farming practice,small low-lying lands are cultivated with rain-fed and irrigated farming systems for paddy,sugarcane, maize, tobacco and seasonal vegetable production. Despite the low availabilityof low-lying agricultural land use, it is often considered productive and economically viable.Forests 2022, 13, 2086 4 of 17Fore ts 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18 Figure 1. Land use/cover (a); (b) elevation; and (c) slope in the CHT. Agriculture land use in the CHT is constrained due to hilly and medium to steep slope topography over two-thirds of the land [33]. Swidden farming along the hillslopes (also referred to as shifting cultivation) is the predominant agriculture land use practice (16% of the land use) for local people. This land use was traditionally managed for annual crop cultivation followed by a fallow period of 10–15 years, but has recently declined due to limited availability of land, lower productivity and insecure land tenure. Early assess-ments erroneously report that swidden agriculture land use only contributes to subsist-ence level production, has no significant economic benefit and causes forest loss and soil erosion [29,33,34]. However, this land use provides some critical form of provisioning ser-vices for food sources managed with traditional knowledge depending on the social and ecological contexts of the rural population [30]. Besides the swidden farming practice, small low-lying lands are cultivated with rain-fed and irrigated farming systems for paddy, sugarcane, maize, tobacco and seasonal vegetable production. Despite the low availability of low-lying agricultural land use, it is often considered productive and eco-nomically viable. Since the 1980s, horticulture with fruit orchard land use (i.e., tree-based agroforestry systems) has increased to improve the agriculture systems and reduce tree loss associated with swidden farming in the region. Enhancing the economic benefits, retaining tree cover on the land and limiting land degradation were the priorities of the fruit orchard based agroforestry extension. Although not extant across the region, fruit orchards with a mix of fruit trees (pineapple, orange, banana, jackfruit and mango trees) and teak plantations increased in the areas closest to markets and roads [29]. Fruit orchards with trees account for roughly 28% of the total land use [35]. However, the adoption of the fruit orchard land use is impaired by the remote locations, poor transportation, insecure market access and Figure . cover (a); (b) elevation; and (c) slope in the CHT.Since the 1980s, horticulture with fruit orchard land use (i.e., tree-based agroforestrysystems) has increased to improve the agriculture systems and reduce tree loss associatedwith swidden farming in the region. Enhancing the economic benefits, retaining tree coveron the land and limiting land degradation were the priorities of the fruit orchard basedagroforestry extension. Although not extant across the region, fruit orchards with a mixof fruit trees (pineapple, orange, banana, jackfruit and mango trees) and teak plantationsincreased in the areas closest to markets and roads [29]. Fruit orchards with trees accountfor roughly 28% of the total land use [35]. However, the adoption of the fruit orchard landuse is impaired by the remote locations, poor transportation, insecure market access andoverall tenure situation. Notably, local ethnic people without adequate land tenure havenot fully adopted fruit orchards [30,36].Regardless of any land se for agriculture, horticulture and forestry, forest and landtenure in terms of ownership rights of the local ethnic p ople for natural resource man-agement is often insecure and complicated [37]. One of the key underlying reasons is thatthe region’s significant land (i.e., around two-thirds of the total land designated as forest,includi g unclassed state forests) is owned by differe t state d pa tments. The local forestdepartment regulates over 35% of t state-own d forest l s and adjacent land use withstrict control on forest product c llection and minimal rights for local th ic communities(Table 1) [38]. The other 65% of forestland, especially uncla sed state forests (i.e., barrenl nds without sig ificant tree cover) is under the control of the local land administration.People’s access to state-owned and u classed forests is limited or partial without securetenure rights. Customary land ownership, an ther form of c mmunity tenur , very oftenove laps with state-d signated forest-contr ll d areas, cons raining people’s access to thecollect on of forest and non- imber forest product , swidden farming and long-t rm own-ership of the community-conserved regions. Only a limited extent of customary rights tolands is currently exercised, allowing people to use forest and agriculture with or withoutclear boundary demarcations. Customary ownership generally allows ethnic people toForests 2022, 13, 2086 5 of 17access swidden farming and a small area of common forest resources. Private ownership, asecure form of land ownership through land title, is minimal in the region. The secure rightsthrough this form of private ownership of forest and planted tree land use are generallylimited within CHT’s poor and marginalised ethnic communities.Table 1. Forestlands under different management authorities in three districts of the CHT [38].DistrictForest Department ManagedDistrictGovernmentControlledReservedForests (ha) USF Lands (ha) USF Lands (ha)Total Forest Land(ha) by DistrictBandarban 107,095 15,646 200,151 322,892Rangamati 248,855 309,267 558,122Khagrachari 38,800 1702 183,837 224,339Total forest 394,750 17,348 693,255 1,105,353% of totalforest area 35.71% 1.57% 62.72% 100%2.2. Approaches to Data Collection and AnalysisThis study applied a participatory rural appraisal tool called Pebble DistributionMethod to the local ethnic population in the CHT region to quantify their preferences andthe perceived value they attached to important ecosystem services about their contribu-tion to well-being [39]. This tool was used to assess people’s judgement of the relativeimportance of various ecosystem services derived from forests and land uses for theirwell-being [40,41]. Value is often associated in economics with price, quality of goodsand services and willingness to pay for marketed or non-marketed ecosystem services.In this study, we used ecosystem services value, not in terms of direct monetary output,but as a reflection of the local people’s perceptions of the relative importance of forestand other land use benefits required to meet their well-being needs (e.g., adequate food,gain income, safe shelter, energy, etc.). The advantages of applying this approach includedcapturing local well-being priorities rather than the interpretations of external researchersand avoiding the complex and financial quantification of ecosystem services for which nomarket existed [16,39].Although individual interviews could offer a more detailed perspective of ecosystemservices, we conducted group deliberations to establish a consensus on the value of specificland use for different ecosystem services among the participants in each workshop setting.In general, the ethnic people in the region have experienced relatively similar social andecological challenges in terms of limited availability of low-lying plain lands and insecureownership rights to swidden farming lands or planted tree lands. However, the recenttrend of the demise of swidden farming land use followed by intensive agriculture and theestablishment of monoculture tree plantations has had various impacts on the livelihoodsand well-being in different areas of the region. In particular, we considered that the differ-ence in the governance of forest and land use by state, private and community managementhas also influenced the preference of the participants where they are located. Focus groupdiscussions enabled us to save time in accessing and explaining the ecosystem services tothe respondents, who were from socially and ecologically dispersed communities. Throughthis participatory approach, we were able to explore the perceived value and importance ofecosystem services to the ethnic population’s livelihoods and well-being and identify whatthey considered to be the benefits, their sources and their linkages to well-being.During 2015–2016, the first author conducted a scoping survey as a part of the globalagrarian change study approach (led by the third author), by undertaking an initial lit-erature review and consulting the local government, non-government organisations andlocal ethnic chiefs to identify representative villages in the region [29]. The first authorForests 2022, 13, 2086 6 of 17selected 12 villages in consultation with the second and third authors that represented thedominant characteristics of current land use practices (e.g., swidden farming, forest andtree-based ecosystems, low-lying agricultural land, fruit orchards) in the region [42]. Thedistinct differences in the communities selected for the study villages were their locations,land use, forest and land ownership (Table 2). The communities in remote villages had ahigher reliance on swidden farming and forests for subsistence and cash income withoutsecure land ownership title [30]. In contrast, people with secure land ownership practisedswidden farming to a lesser extent in intermediate and on-road locations. They weremore engaged in low-lying agricultural cropping practices and planted tree areas withfruit orchards. Of the total of 12 villages, we randomly selected eight villages for focusgroup meetings, covering two-three villages from each location. Taking account of thecharacteristics (Table 1), we generally consider that the communities of villages within onelocation are more similar in land use practice and ownership than others.Table 2. Salient features of the villages in three different locations of the CHT region, adaptedfrom [29].Remote Intermediate On-RoadName of villages• Uluchari• Chainda• Marma• Pangkhua para• Paglachara• Angadpara• Bijoypara• Suanglupara• Khamadong• Kamalong• Jogeshkarbaripara• Bagmara HeadmanparaEthnicity of inhabitants• Tanchangya/Chakma• Pangkhua• Marma• Tanchangya• Marma• Bawm• Marma• ChakmaPopulation density(per sq. km.) 38 62 176Land use types• Swidden agriculture• Fallow land• Natural and/secondary forests• Swidden agriculture• Low-land agriculture• Secondary forests• Plantations• Fruit-tree garden• Low-land agriculture• Plantations• Small fruit-tree gardenLand ownership • State• State• Customary• Private (land title)• State• Private (land title)Location (distance tosub-district/district market) • 2–3 h travel by boat • 0.5–1 h by motorbike • 30 min by motorbikeWith a small team of locally recruited research assistants, the first author organisedeight focus group meetings with local communities in the CHT region to quantify theirpreferred (most important) ecosystem services of different land uses and their linkages tolivelihood and well-being constituents (Figure 2). Each focus group consisted of six-eightindividuals with various occupations, including forest users, swidden farmers, commercialfarmers and politically elected community members from the group’s village. The fieldteam discussed the ecosystem services concept with participants in the local languageto introduce its importance and scope in terms of more comprehensive benefits. We didnot expect people to be familiar with the technical term. The field team presented thewell-being concept by describing it as a combination of security, essential material for life,adequate food and nutrition, health, and social relations.Forests 2022, 13, 2086 7 of 17t , , x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 8 Figure 2. Study location of 8 villages in CHT region (of 12 villages) indicated on the map where focus group meeting was undertaken. Figure 2. Study location of 8 villages in CHT region (of 12 villages) indicated on the map where focusgroup meeting was undertaken.Forests 2022, 13, 2086 8 of 17In each focus group meeting, the participants were asked two questions. The firstquestion was: What are the most important benefits you receive from the surroundinglandscape, focusing mainly on land uses? The participants were allowed to discuss thesurrounding land uses and identify their valued benefits. Our study thereby identifiedthe benefits of forests, trees and other land uses that the respondents considered mostimportant. Occasionally, the field team introduced a list of expected benefits identifiedfor this region related to land use [18]. Then, to determine the comparisons of land uses,we asked a second question: From where do you obtain or receive the most benefits inthe landscape?In the meeting, the participants listed the benefits they thought were important to theirlivelihoods and well-being. In each village, the participants discussed within the group toreach a consensus on the main forest and other landscape components/land use benefitsthey considered necessary for meeting their well-being. Then, the field team asked them toevaluate the benefits based on their importance and distribution across sources (land use).The participants scored the relative importance of the identified ecosystem services for therespective well-being constituents on a scale of 1–100. They evaluated the benefits morethan once, according to their linkages to the livelihood and well-being requirements andsources. In so doing, they identified the main benefits of the land uses that they consideredimportant. Once they had evaluated the important benefits for their respective well-beingconstituents, we discussed their reasons for choosing the benefits for the respective forestand other land uses. In this scoring part of the focus group, the participants were asked todistribute 100 counters (buttons, seeds, or pebbles) between labelled and illustrated cardsin proportion to their ‘importance’. We recorded the ecosystem services’ values (counts) ofland uses under different well-being categories in a spreadsheet.We calculated the percentage of broad ecosystem services categories (i.e., provisioning,regulating and cultural services). Then we tested the difference among land use scoresfor well-being needs using Kruskal-Wallis test. We analysed the post hoc comparisons ofdifferent land-use preferred for each well-being need in R statistical programming. Wealso compared the well-being needs with forests and land uses and different managementcontexts i.e., given different forms of ownership rights of the participants in the private,private-community and state forest and land use. We obtained the ethics approval forthis research through the Charles Darwin University Human Ethics Committee (ethicsclearance number: H15005). We also received informed consent from all participants forour study.2.3. Limitations of the ResearchOur study was carried out via a focus group meeting rather than individual inter-views or surveys. The group approach has given us a better understanding of how themajority of people in each location value ecosystem services. However, we acknowledgethat the focus group may have masked individual heterogeneity on the preferences ofthe ecosystem services from specific land uses to meet the well-being needs, within thisculturally diverse area of the country. Individual contexts of the rural ethnic populationwith different socio-economic characteristics, wealth conditions, ethnic backgrounds andlevel of land ownership may be valuable information in covering the breadth of ES value atthe household level, preference of land uses and target the management interventions forimproved forest and land use practices, to meet their most well-being needs.3. Results3.1. Preferred ES for the Well-BeingOur analysis presents reasons and people’s preferences for ecosystem services re-garding their importance for well-being (Table 3). Local communities identified eight ofthe most important ecosystem services, i.e., timber, bamboo and grass for housebuilding,protection from soil erosion, water, fuel wood, spiritual benefits, food for own uses and live-stock grazing, and primary medicine (Table 3). These benefits meet their well-being needsForests 2022, 13, 2086 9 of 17in a number of different ways, including nutrition and income. The valued well-beingneeds include the ability to obtain safe shelter, adjust to ecological stress, water, secureenergy, adequate food and nutrition, food for livestock, avoid disease, to meet cultural andspiritual needs. Among the specific well-being needs, people preferred and valued safeshelter (>70 points) and the ability to protect land from soil erosion (50–70 scores) (after that,this well-being worded as reduce ecological stress) as highly important services. Overall,75% of the ecosystem services the respondents identified were provisioning services, whilethose remaining were regulating and cultural ecosystem services.Table 3. Local community’s identification of ES, the reason for preference and linkage to well-being.ES Preference Reason for Preference Relevance for Well-Being Components(Following MA, 2005)Timber, bamboo and grass forhousebuilding/constructionLocally available raw materials, low-cost andtraditional knowledge in building housing Safe shelterProtection from soil erosionand fertilityReduce soil erosion for crop production andprotection from landslidesAbility to reduce ecological stress such aslandslides associated with soil erosionWater Water only sourced from springs, creeksadjacent to forest Adequate water for useFuel wood Mainly used for cooking and boiling water Ability to secure energy useSpiritual benefits Worship and peaceful living Cultural and spiritual benefitsFood Crops cultivated; gathered from the forestand adjacent wild environment Adequate foodAdequate nutritionLivestock food Availability of food for livestock grazing Adequate food for livestockPrimary medicine Available plant materials and traditionalknowledge associated with healing practices Ability to avoid diseaseAccess to income3.2. Land Use Preferences for ES to Support the Well-BeingThe analysis presents the association of the most preferred land use for specific ecosys-tem services required to meet people’s basic well-being (Figure 3). The five land usespreferred by local communities for ecosystem services in the landscape were forest/plantedtree land, swidden/fallow land, low-lying agricultural land, fruit orchards and waterbodies.Among those land uses, the forest was the most preferred, followed by fruit orchards, swid-den/fallow, low-lying land and water bodies. Forest land was preferred for almost all theecosystem services that the local people valued for their well-being (Figure 3). Compared toall other land uses in the landscape, the forest was the single most preferred land use withdiverse options for contributing to specific well-being needs through energy, safe shelter,cultural and spiritual benefits and an enhanced local people’s ability to avoid disease. Asidefrom forests, our analysis showed the people’s preference for fruit orchards and low-lyingand swidden agriculture land use for meeting safe shelter and energy needs (Figure 3).The land use preference was significantly different for ecosystem services in attainingwell-being needs (X2 = 77.986, p < 0.000). The post hoc comparisons of land use showedthat forest was valued significantly higher than other land use (p < 0.05) for its benefit inenhancing people’s ability to avoid disease, its cultural and spiritual importance, energyuse, safe shelter and supporting adequate water for use. Water bodies were the mostpreferred land use for adequate water (p < 0.05) other than forest. To secure adequate food,only low-lying agricultural land was more preferred than any other land use (p < 0.001).No significant difference was found in the land use preference for adequate food, nutrition,income, food for livestock and ability to reducing ecological stress such as soil erosion orlandslide. Forest and low-lying agricultural land were also more preferred for adequatelivestock food.Forests 2022, 13, 2086 10 of 17Forests 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18 Table 3. Local community’s identification of ES, the reason for preference and linkage to well-being. ES Preference Reason for Preference Relevance for Well-Being Components (Following MA, 2005) Timber, bamboo and grass for housebuilding/construc-tion 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 adja-cent 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 food Adequate 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 Figure 3. People’s preferences for ecosystem services from different land uses to meet their well-being needs. Figure 3. People’s preferences for ecosystem services from different land uses to meet their well-being needs.3.3. Land Use Preferences for ES under Different Ownership ContextsFurther analysis showed the influence of forest and land ownership contexts (state,private, private and community) on people’s land use preference for specific well-beingneeds (Figure 4). Participants in state land-owned areas, reported forest over others forall well-being needs. Within the state and private-community land-owned areas, peopleshowed more preferences for forestland use for the ability to avoid disease, energy andsafe shelter, which is slightly higher than those in private ownership. Fruit orchard wasthe commonly preferred land use for adequate nutrition and ability to reduce ecologicalstress across all three ownership areas, with partly high perceived importance in privateand private-community ownership areas. In private and state ownership contexts, peoplequalified the swidden agricultural practices in the maintenance of diverse well-beingoptions, with slightly high value reported for this land use in state owned areas. Waterbodies were highly valued land use by participants in the private and private-communityownership areas regarding water need compared to those in state-owned forest areas.People in state land ownership considered that waterbodies enhance their ability to avoiddisease more than those in private and private-community villages.Forests 2022, 13, 2086 11 of 17Forests 2022, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 18 Figure 4. Variations of land use preference for ES to support well-being under different land own-ership contexts. The top labels of the “x” axis show the ownership contexts. The “y” axis shows the well-being needs. Across all the ownership contexts, participants valued swidden agricultural land as a source of adequate food and wood energy with relatively high value in a state owner-ship context. Among all ownership cases, the private ownership participants preferred low-lying agricultural land use. This is also observed for the swidden agricultural land use that participants generally valued for energy contribution, apart from forests, across all three ownership contexts. The participants located within private and private-owner-ship with secure access to land use showed a high preference for low-lying agricultural land for adequate food for livestock, compared to those in state areas. 4. Discussion Our study revealed people’s preferences for ecosystem services that supported their well-being in 10 different ways, mainly safe shelter, ecological stress reduction, disease avoidance, adequate water use, and cultural and spiritual satisfaction. Local people val-ued forests and land uses such as swidden farming/fallow land, low-lying agriculture, fruit orchards and waterbodies as key sources to obtain their preferred ecosystem services Figure 4. Variations of land use preference for ES to support well-being under different land owner-ship contexts. The top labels of the “x” axis show the ownership contexts. The “y” axis shows thewell-being needs.Across all the ownership contexts, participants valued swidden agricultural land as asource of adequate food and wood energy with relatively high value in a state ownershipcontext. Among all ownership cases, the private ownership participants preferred low-lying agricultural land use. This is also observed for the swidden agricultural land usethat participants generally valued for energy contribution, apart from forests, across allthree ownership contexts. The participants located within private and private-ownershipwith secure access to land use showed a high preference for low-lying agricultural land foradequate food for livestock, compared to those in state areas.4. DiscussionOur study revealed people’s preferences for ecosystem services that supported theirwell-being in 10 different ways, mainly safe shelter, ecological stress reduction, diseaseavoidance, adequate water use, and cultural and spiritual satisfaction. Local people valuedforests and land uses such as swidden farming/fallow land, low-lying agriculture, fruitorchards and waterbodies as key sources to obtain their preferred ecosystem services tosupport their well-being. The preferences for land use and related benefits assessed in ourstudy reflect the different values people attached to secure their well-being [43]. The landForests 2022, 13, 2086 12 of 17use and associated ecosystem services, in particular, show the varied forms of well-beingimpacted by different management contexts within the same landscape.4.1. Valuing ES for Well-BeingPrevious studies mention individual households’ perceived ecosystem services de-mand without explaining how this relates to people’s well-being in rural contexts [19].Our study accounted for ecosystems’ highly valued contributions to basic well-being: safeshelter, the ability to reduce ecological stress, primary energy, cultural and spiritual benefits,adequate water for use and access to traditional health care. A similar set of well-beingneeds reported in South Africa showed a specific pattern of ecosystem services used byhouseholds [44]. In our study, people preferred safe shelter, which identified their persistentneed for construction materials, including bamboo and timber provisioning ecosystemservices. This finding supports previous studies showing that changes in forest areas affectrural people’s well-being owing to reduced secure access to forest resources to gatherconstruction timber and non-timber forest products, including bamboo and the inability tomaintain dietary diversity because of the lack of forest-sourced wild foods [45,46].Aside from these benefits, which are directly related to community use-values, people’spreference for ecological stress reduction (i.e., protection from soil erosion or maintainingsoil fertility) reveals an indirect contribution to the ecosystem itself to maintain farm produc-tivity and support the long-term subsistence of the population, which is directly exposedto food insecurity and must rely on its surrounding ecosystem. Soil erosion and associatedfertility loss resulting in a decline in land usability and further ecosystem degradationfound in our study is a common concern in swidden-dominated agro-ecosystems [47]. Ourparticipatory valuation of ecosystem services reflects people’s different levels of exposureto nature, experience and effects on improving well-being [9,43]. Local farmers experienc-ing a decline in farm productivity showed a positive attitude toward restoring the forestlandscape in the CHT region.People’s preferences for ecosystem services for well-being needs reflect a commonconnection to their landscape in the CHT. For instance, specific ecosystem services, suchas the ability to avoid disease through traditional healing, reflects a positive attitudetoward the ecosystem in maintaining health care in all the land use practices we studied.Preferences for the cultural and spiritual benefits of ecosystems also indicate better socialrelationships and attachment to the landscape [48,49]. These cultural benefits and therealisation of ecosystem services are strongly linked to the values and norms of Indigenouspeople and local communities in many countries across the world [14,50–52].Cultural value, in terms of a sense of place, a sacred landscape, and the role ofspirituality in maintaining native vegetation and conservation of watersheds, indicatesthe strong connection to forest conservation that many Indigenous populations have [29].However, driven by the global focus on carbon-based forest management, national forestpolicy ignores local and ethnic people’s cultural value given to forest conservation ortheir perceptions of changing landscapes [12]. Assessing local forests’ social and culturalvalues and the customary rules and knowledge that have persisted and been co-producedover time will be a crucial area for further research to support locally adaptive forestmanagement in maintaining its global value. In this regard, customary management canplay a critical role in maintaining the traditional knowledge of community forest protectionfor watersheds and rule-making in sustainable use of non-timber forest provisioningecosystem services.4.2. ES Value Associated with Different Land UsesThe ecosystem services preferences of local people revealed that well-being wasstrongly associated with different land-use configurations in a landscape [16]. Forest andtree-based ecosystems, especially, were highly valued for providing most of the benefitsrequired to achieve well-being. Forests are mainly beneficial for safe shelter, energy, culturaland spiritual needs, ecological stress reduction, primary health care or traditional healing,Forests 2022, 13, 2086 13 of 17adequate water, and livestock food sources. Apart from forests, fruit orchard land use isvalued for nutrition, adequate water, minimisation of ecological stress, safe shelter andcultural and spiritual benefits.Previous studies have mentioned that the increased demand for fruit orchard landuse is driven by government policy supporting agro-forest expansion to replace swiddenagricultural practices in the CHT and other upland landscapes of Southeast Asia [34,53].Although swidden farming land was considered to show low productivity agriculturepractice in such studies, our study found that people’s choice of this land use existed tosupport adequate food, income and energy sources. The social and cultural importanceof this subsistence land use, i.e., swidden farming in our case, is more important thaneconomic value. Interestingly low-lying agricultural land use was highly preferred foradequate food, nutrition, income and livestock grazing benefits. Low-lying agriculturalland could be cultivated with commercially important crops (i.e., tobacco, potato, taro) ona rotational basis for more than two seasons in a single year, even though the proportionof this land use is relatively low due to the region’s physiographic conditions. A positiveattitude was also observed towards waterbodies because of the need for adequate food,nutrition, water and cultural and spiritual benefits. Therefore, it is evident that rural peoplehave a wide range of social, economic and ecological values embedded in most land usesin their vicinity.Agricultural expansion and the development of alternative land use with commerciallyvaluable crops, including monoculture trees and fruit orchards, often limit the diversityof well-being options in a landscape [28]. Provisioning ecosystem services for food andincome benefits showed a strong positive association with most land uses, except forests.Our study on the low valuation of forest-sourced food and nutrition contradicts the valueof the forest for food of individual households recently reported by other studies in theregion and elsewhere in the tropics [54]. Forest and tree-based foods were considered oflow importance by community participants, who were more driven by their interest inland use to enhance food production and economic gains. In recent decades, there hasbeen much interest in fruit orchards, monoculture crops, and planted land uses withoutconsidering people’s differences in the capacity to access such land uses. This community-based valuation may contrast with that of individual households that might require forest-sourced foods to avoid food shortages and achieve adequate nutrition [28,54]. Future landmanagement policy should consider this context concerning the well-being needs of thosewho may be unable to access fruit orchards and low-lying lands.Furthermore, management contexts regarding people’s different forest and land own-ership rights to the landscape influence their ecosystem services and land use preferencesin supporting their well-being. Our study findings supports similar research by others [40],which showed that ecosystem services use differs across people’s well-being situationsand partly relates to resource ownership in a social-ecological system. Land ownershipstatus is a strong predictor of the distribution of ecosystem services with differing val-ues for well-being needs [37,55,56]. For instance, people without secure land rights inthe state ownership context preferred forest and swidden agricultural land for meetingseveral well-being needs (adequate food, income, nutrition, livestock foraging and waterfor use). Overall, people with fully secure land rights departed from relying on swiddenfarming lands and employed diverse forms of land use to support their well-being. It wasevident that secure land ownership was attributed to a higher preference for forests, fruitorchards, low-lying agriculture and water bodies for multiple benefits. Especially privateownership influences the choice of water bodies for their protection to secure adequatewater. From our study, the specific management contexts of the landscape that local peopleexperienced in their daily lives strongly influenced their ecosystem services preferences toachieve well-being.Forests 2022, 13, 2086 14 of 175. Conclusions and Future DirectionsWe assessed the value of ecosystem services’ by eliciting community preferences forecosystem services obtained from diverse land uses to support well-being. Our studyfindings demonstrate a comprehensive appreciation of local ethnic communities for theirsurrounding landscape, delivering a broad range of ecosystem services with diverse contri-butions to meet their well-being. By applying participatory habitat valuation approach,the local community’s preferences revealed their shared aspiration to access a wide rangeof benefits, mainly safe shelter, traditional healing to avoid disease, energy, and culturaland spiritual benefits in their landscape. It is inevitable that a minimal set of ecosystemservices will be necessary for the well-being of the ethnic population living in this land-scape, but this may rarely be, if ever, sufficient given the patterns of land use and access.Overall, people perceived the role of land use to supply about two-thirds of their well-beingneeds. Although we observed a substantial variation in ecosystem services preferencesfrom different land uses, the forest is found to be the most useful among all in deliveringthe maximum well-being benefits. The beneficial contributions of other land use suchas swidden agriculture land use, fruit orchard and low-lying agriculture land use reflectthe multifunctionality of the landscape and its roles in sustaining the ecosystem servicesrequired to meet various well-being needs [56].Differences in land ownership influenced people’s perceptions of the benefits andsupply of ecosystem services from the land uses in the CHT region. The insecure landownership affects people’s reliance on the forest and swidden agricultural land use formeeting a wide range of needs. Swidden agriculture farming is currently regarded for itstrade-offs in provisioning multiple ecosystem services although evidently the land useremains a critical source of food, income and energy options to a particular community. Bycontrast, our study found that preferences for fruit orchards, regardless of the ownershipcontexts, indicate its acceptance as a valuable land use. This specific preference of land useindicates an opportunity for engaging the swidden farmers in sustainable land management(i.e., agroforestry) by providing them secure land ownership. Indigenous people and localcommunities are likely to follow different land use pathways in accessing ecosystemservices or to replace some with others to achieve well-being [11]. Thus, their existingsituation and future well-being needs will be depended on a plethora of contextual social,ecological and institutional factors in accessing the most desired land use practices. Many ofthe well-being needs cannot be provided through access to ecosystem services without theproper ownership arrangement for land use that we found in a socio-ecological system [57].To maintain the well-being of the local ethnic population relying on ecosystem services,it will be important to integrate their aspirations within the existing land management.Given the high value of forests, future land management approaches could considerachieving multiple benefits supported by ecosystem services-based policies. For instance,embedding ecosystem services within forest and other land-use-related strategies mayavoid trade-offs in the provision of ecosystem services. The National Forest Policy (2016) inBangladesh contains an objective for large-scale tree plantation programmes in degradedforest areas (i.e., unclassed state forests in the CHT region) and mentions the need toprovide shared forest benefits for local communities [25]. However, there are no specificmeasures for understanding how forest and land use benefits are distributed and managedunder different land ownership contexts. In the CHT region, land ownership will influencethe types of forest and land management and the intended goals for ecosystem services.Without addressing ownership issues in forest and land use-related policies, there arepotential challenges in securing a wide range of ecosystem services benefits to supportlocal people’s well-being.Some broader recommendations can be drawn from this study. Firstly, forest and agri-cultural land management practices should consider the local community’s preferences forecosystem services from their desired land uses to realise their future well-being. Secondly,an integrated management approach may be undertaken with trees and fruit-based landuse strategies to maximise ecosystem services values, as well-being is supported by moreForests 2022, 13, 2086 15 of 17than one land use practice. Ecosystem services should be placed at the heart of forest andland use-related policies to guide local and regional natural resource management. Thirdly,a strategy to support greater land ownership for local ethnic people would allow them toa secure tenure right on forests, agriculture and fruit orchard, among others. In doing sothere will be a strong possibility to maintain synergistic co-existence of the land uses andthereby sustain the provision of ES in meeting multiple well-being needs in a landscape.The results of this study could be extended through further research to broadeningunderstanding of the role of land use preferences in addressing the breadth of ecosystemservices’ contributions to well-being and decision-making. We consider specific areas worthinvestigation in future are: (i) integrated valuation of ecosystem services to determine thesynergies and trade-offs between and within ecosystem services to inform forest and landmanagement; (ii) individual stakeholder’s land use preferences on ecosystem services andwell-being; (iii) underlying social, ecological and economic drivers in mediating multiplevalues of ecosystem services in landscape management; (iv) the links between climaticchange and land use and impacts on the provisions of ecosystem services; and (v) howto address challenges and opportunities of land ownership in operationalising ecosystemservices-based forest and landscape restoration.Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.A., N.S. and K.K.S.; methodology, R.A. and K.K.S.;formal analysis, R.A.; writing—original draft preparation, R.A.; writing—review and editing, R.A.,N.S., K.K.S. and T.S.; supervision, N.S. and T.S.; project administration, R.A.; funding acquisition, T.S.All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.Funding: This research was funded by the United States Agency for International Development(USAID) and the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) through grants to Centerfor International Forestry Research (CIFOR). This publication is an output of the CGIAR ConsortiumResearch Program on Forests, Trees and Agroforestry. The research was also funded by an AustralianPostgraduate Award, and postgraduate research funding under the Faculty of Engineering, Health,Science and the Environment of Charles Darwin University, Australia, and a Ph.D. DissertationFellowship of the South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics (SANDEE)through the Asian Centre for Development, Bangladesh.Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express heartfelt thanks to the people who took parkin numerous focus group discussions in the study villages.Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.References1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). In Ecosystems and HumanWell-Being: Synthesis; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2005;Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).2. Ehrlich, P.R.; Mooney, H.A. Extinction, substitution, and ecosystem services. BioScience 1983, 33, 248–254. [CrossRef]3. Daily, G.C. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.4. 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. [CrossRef]5. 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 Ecosystemsand Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations; Routledge: London, UK, 2010; pp. 183–256.6. 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. [CrossRef]7. Díaz, S.; Demissew, S.; Carabias, J.; Joly, C.; Lonsdale, M.; Ash, N.; Larigauderie, A.; Adhikari, J.R.; Arico, S.; Báldi, A.; et al. TheIPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef]8. 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).9. 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. [PubMed]10. 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).Forests 2022, 13, 2086 16 of 1711. 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.[CrossRef]12. Plieninger, T.; Dijks, S.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Bieling, C. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services atcommunity level. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 118–129. [CrossRef]13. Wang, X.; Dong, X.; Liu, H.; Wei, H.; Fan, W.; Lu, N.; Xu, Z.; Ren, J.; Xing, K. Linking land use change, ecosystem services andhuman well-being: A case study of the Manas River Basin of Xinjiang, China. Ecosyst. Serv. 2017, 27, 113–123. [CrossRef]14. Sangha, K.K.; Preece, L.; Villarreal-Rosas, J.; Kegamba, J.J.; Paudyal, K.; Warmenhoven, T.; RamaKrishnan, P.S. An ecosystemservices framework to evaluate Indigenous and local peoples’ connections with nature. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 31, 111–125. [CrossRef]15. Sandhu, H.; Sandhu, S. Linking ecosystem services with the constituents of human well-being for poverty alleviation in easternHimalayas. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107, 65–75. [CrossRef]16. 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. [CrossRef]17. Lau, J.D.; Hicks, C.C.; Gurney, G.G.; Cinner, J.E. Disaggregating ecosystem service values and priorities by wealth, age, andeducation. Ecosyst. Serv. 2018, 29, 91–98. [CrossRef]18. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T.C. Use and perceived importance of forest ecosystem services in rural livelihoods ofChittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 35, 87–98. [CrossRef]19. Muhamad, D.; Okubo, S.; Harashina, K.; Gunawan, B.; Takeuchi, K. Living close to forests enhances people’ s perception ofecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 8, 197–206. [CrossRef]20. Benra, F.; Nahuelhual, L. A trilogy of inequalities: Land ownership, forest cover and ecosystem services distribution. Land UsePolicy 2019, 82, 247–257. [CrossRef]21. 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. [CrossRef]22. 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. [CrossRef]23. 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. [CrossRef]24. 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-ecologicalsystems of Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 42. [CrossRef]25. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Analysis of forest-related policies for supporting ecosystem services-based forestmanagement in Bangladesh. Ecosyst. Serv. 2021, 48, 101235. [CrossRef]26. BBS 2016. Statistical Pocket Book 2016. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Statistics and Informatics Division, Ministryof 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).27. Xu, X.; Shrestha, S.; Gilani, H.; Gumma, M.K.; Siddiqui, B.N.; Jain, A.K. Dynamics and drivers of land use and land cover changesin Bangladesh. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2020, 20, 54. [CrossRef]28. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Eddy, I.M.; Tomscha, S.A.; Sunderland, T.C. Recent trends of forest cover change and ecosystem servicesin eastern upland region of Bangladesh. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 647, 379–389. [CrossRef] [PubMed]29. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N. Forest and agrarian change in the Chittagong Hill Tracts region of Bangladesh. In Agrarian Change inTropical Landscapes; CIFOR: Bogor Regency, Indonesia, 2016; pp. 191–232. [CrossRef]30. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Assessing land use changes and livelihood outcomes of rural people in the ChittagongHill Tracts region, Bangladesh. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 32, 3626–3638. [CrossRef]31. 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.[CrossRef]32. Ahammad, R.; Stacey, N.; Sunderland, T. Determinants of forest and tree uses across households of different sites and ethnicitiesin Bangladesh. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 2021, 17, 232–242. [CrossRef]33. Islam, S.M.; Alam, M.; Mantel, S. Land use planning and environmental control in the Chittagong Hill Tracts. In CHARMProject Report 3; CHARM Project: Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007; Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/296235 (accessed on22 November 2022).34. 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. [CrossRef]35. Bala, B.K.; Majumder, S.; Altaf Hossain, S.M.; Haque, M.A.; Hossain, M.A. Exploring development strategies of agriculturalsystems of Hill Tracts of Chittagong in Bangladesh. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2013, 15, 949–966. [CrossRef]36. Nath, T.K.; Inoue, M. The upland settlement project of Bangladesh as a means of reducing land degradation and improving rurallivelihoods. Small-Scale For. 2008, 7, 163–182. [CrossRef]37. Ahammad, R.; Hossain, M.K.; Sobhan, I.; Hasan, R.; Biswas, S.R.; Mukul, S.A. Social, ecological and institutional factors affectingforest and landscape restoration in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Land Use Policy 2023, 125, 106478. [CrossRef]Forests 2022, 13, 2086 17 of 1738. Bangladesh Forest Department (BFD), 2016. District Wise Forest Land of Bangladesh. Government of the People’s Republic ofBangladesh. Available online: http://www.bforest.gov.bd/site/page/837e6966-0fce-4274-a0d0-bcdfa49ce492/- (accessed on 2October 2022).39. Liswanti, N.; Basuki, I. Guidelines for Adapted Multidisciplinary Landscape Assessment Methods for Fire Management Projects in India;CIFOR: Bogor Regency, Indonesia, 2010.40. 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 MultidisciplinaryLandscape Assessment; CIFOR: Bogor Regency, Indonesia, 2002.41. Villamor, G.B.; Palomo, I.; Santiago, C.A.L.; Oteros-Rozas, E.; Hill, J. Assessing stakeholders’ perceptions and values towardssocial-ecological systems using participatory methods. Ecol. Process. 2014, 3, 22. [CrossRef]42. 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. [CrossRef]43. Dawson, N.; Martin, A. Assessing the contribution of ecosystem services to human wellbeing: A disaggregated study in westernRwanda. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 117, 62–72. [CrossRef]44. Hamann, M.; Biggs, R.; Reyers, B. Mapping social–ecological systems: Identifying ‘green-loop’and ‘red-loop’dynamics based oncharacteristic bundles of ecosystem service use. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2015, 34, 218–226. [CrossRef]45. 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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]46. Ehara, M.; Hyakumura, K.; Nomura, H.; Matsuura, T.; Sokh, H.; Leng, C. Identifying characteristics of households affected bydeforestation in their fuelwood and non-timber forest product collections: Case study in Kampong Thom Province, Cambodia.Land Use Policy 2016, 52, 92–102. [CrossRef]47. van Noordwijk, M.; Ekadinata, A.; Leimona, B.; Catacutan, D.; Martini, E.; Tata, H.L.; Öborn, I.; Hairiah, K.; Wangpakapattana-wong, 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. [CrossRef]48. Villamagna, A.; Giesecke, C. Adapting human well-being frameworks for ecosystem service assessments across diverse landscapes.Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 11. [CrossRef]49. Leong, K.M.; Wongbusarakum, S.; Ingram, R.J.; Mawyer, A.; Poe, M.R. Improving representation of human well-being andcultural importance in conceptualizing the West Hawai ‘i Ecosystem. Front. Mar. Sci. 2019, 6, 231. [CrossRef]50. Torralba, M.; Lovric´, M.; Roux, J.L.; Budniok, M.A.; Mulier, A.S.; Winkel, G.; Plieninger, T. Examining the relevance of culturalecosystem services in forest management in Europe. Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, 2. [CrossRef]51. 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. [CrossRef]52. West, S.; Haider, L.J.; Stålhammar, S.; Woroniecki, S. A relational turn for sustainability science? Relational thinking, leveragepoints and transformations. Ecosyst. People 2020, 16, 304–325. [CrossRef]53. 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. [CrossRef]54. 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.[CrossRef]55. Hausner, V.H.; Brown, G.; Lægreid, E. Effects of land tenure and protected areas on ecosystem services and land use preferencesin Norway. Land Use Policy 2015, 49, 446–461. [CrossRef]56. Kumar, A.; Ekka, P.; Patra, S.; Kumar, G.; Kishore, B.S.; Kumar, R.; Saikia, P. Geospatial Perspectives of Sustainable ForestManagement to Enhance Ecosystem Services and Livelihood Security. In Advances in Remote Sensing for Forest Monitoring; JohnWiley & Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2022; pp. 10–42.57. Leary, J.; Grimm, K.; Aslan, C.; Mark, M.; Frey, S.; Bath-Rosenfeld, R. Landowners’ Socio-Cultural Valuation of Ecosystem ServicesProvided by Trees in Costa Rican Agricultural Landscapes. Environ. Manag. 2021, 67, 974–987. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Article
eng
Reviewed
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
CC BY 4.0
Faculty
Researcher
valuation of ecosystem services
forest and land tenure
forest ecosystem services
landscape value
livelihoods
landscape multifunctionality
Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh
Text