Land Use Preference for Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with the effects of land use on the ecosystem services provision and the humans well being.

The abstract lacks of numerical information’s based on the results of the study.

The cloud computing technologies provide useful insights in the spatiotemporal assessment of regulation services of peri-urban environments due to land use changes (Stefanidis et al., 2022; Hasan et al.,2020).

Stefanidis, S., Alexandridis, V., & Mallinis, G. (2022). A cloud-based mapping approach for assessing spatiotemporal changes in erosion dynamics due to biotic and abiotic disturbances in a Mediterranean Peri-Urban forest. Catena, 218, 106564.

Hasan, S. S., Zhen, L., Miah, M. G., Ahamed, T., & Samie, A. (2020). Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environmental Development, 34, 100527.

Clearly state the novelty of the current approach and research gap according the recent literature and relative studies.

Figure 1. Improve the quality and labels.

Figure 2. Improve the quality of the figure and especially title axis.

Add some future research direction.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The article deals with the effects of land use on the ecosystem services provision and the humans well being. The abstract lacks of numerical information’s based on the results of the study.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. We have added the numerical information in the abstract.

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 soil erosion associated landslide), cultural and spiritual benefits and livestock foraging.

The cloud computing technologies provide useful insights in the spatiotemporal assessment of regulation services of peri-urban environments due to land use changes (Stefanidis et al., 2022; Hasan et al.,2020).

Stefanidis, S., Alexandridis, V., & Mallinis, G. (2022). A cloud-based mapping approach for assessing spatiotemporal changes in erosion dynamics due to biotic and abiotic disturbances in a Mediterranean Peri-Urban forest. Catena, 218, 106564.

Hasan, S. S., Zhen, L., Miah, M. G., Ahamed, T., & Samie, A. (2020). Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environmental Development, 34, 100527.

Clearly state the novelty of the current approach and research gap according the recent literature and relative studies.

Response: We have revised the literature and identified a gap with the suggested citation.

Although there is much research undertaken on land use changes and ecosystem ser-vices with a valuation in general rather than understanding the differences in values attached to specific land uses in a landscape.

This is particularly the case of land ownership contexts in swidden agriculture-dominated landscapes where the forest and land tenure right might influence people’s preferences of land uses and making decisions for sustainable provision of ES. 

Figure 1. Improve the quality and labels.

Response: We have revised figure 1.

Figure 2. Improve the quality of the figure and especially title axis.

Response: We have revised figure 2 by improving the quality of the figure and title axis.

Add some future research direction.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. In conclusion, we have added key future research directions.

The results of this study could be extended through further research to broadening understanding of the role of land use preferences in addressing the breadth of ecosystem services’ contributions to well-being and decision-making. We consider specific areas worth investigation in future are: i) integrated valuation of ecosystem services to determine the synergies and trade-offs between and within ecosystem ser-vices to inform forest and land management; ii) individual stakeholder’s land use preferences on ecosystem services and well-being; iii) underlying social, ecological and economic drivers in mediating multiple values of ecosystem services in landscape management; and iv) how to address challenges and opportunities of land ownership in operationalising ecosystem services-based forest and landscape restoration.

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewed article is devoted to the assessment of ecosystem services in the areas inhabited by the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh. The authors base the ecosystem services assessment on the landscape perception and its value by the inhabitants of local villages, which, in my opinion, is an interesting and non-standard approach. I think that such an approach to research is extremely interesting for the reader and the scientific community. The authors obtained unique results, and their methodology and approach to the study can be replicated in other areas. At the same time, I think that the authors could detail the methodology and results of the research, and illustrate the statistical reliability of the information received. The article can be published after this small revision.

Author Response

Point 1: The reviewed article is devoted to the assessment of ecosystem services in the areas inhabited by the indigenous peoples of Bangladesh. The authors base the ecosystem services assessment on the landscape perception and its value by the inhabitants of local villages, which, in my opinion, is an interesting and non-standard approach. I think that such an approach to research is extremely interesting for the reader and the scientific community. The authors obtained unique results, and their methodology and approach to the study can be replicated in other areas. At the same time, I think that the authors could detail the methodology and results of the research, and illustrate the statistical reliability of the information received. The article can be published after this small revision.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. We have revised the methodology indicating the criteria for selecting the villages and their representation in the focus group meeting. We also added a section on the limitation of the research.

The distinct 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 a higher reliance on swidden farming and forests for subsistence and cash income without secure land ownership title [30]. In contrast, people with secure land ownership practised swidden farming to a lesser extent in intermediate and on-road locations. They were more engaged in low-lying agricultural cropping practices and planted tree areas with fruit orchards. Of the total of twelve villages, we randomly selected eight villages for focus group meetings, covering 2-3 villages from each location. Taking account of the characteristics (Table 1), we generally consider the communities of villages within one location are more similar in land use practice and ownership than others.

Response 2: 

2.3. Limitations of the research

Our study carried out the focus group meeting than individual interviews or surveys. However, our group approach has given us a better understanding of how the majority of people in each location value ecosystem services. However, we acknowledge that the focus group may have masked individual heterogeneity on the preferences of the ecosystem services from specific land uses to meet the well-being needs, within this culturally diverse area of the country. Individual contexts of the rural ethnic population with different socio-economic characteristics, ethnic backgrounds and level of land ownership may be valuable information in covering the breadth of ES value at the household level, preference of land uses and target the management interventions for improved forest and land use practices, to meet their most needs.

Reviewer 3 Report

It has been interesting to read the manuscript with the title Land use preferences for ecosystem services and well-being in Bangladesh  and see how focus groups related methods can be used for dropping conclusions regarding ways to address the land-use and tenure context in order to improve the wellbeing of Bangladesh communities   The paper is part of an array of studies on the study area focusing the impact of land use on the well-being ob communities members with important applicability on policy elaboration and enforcement process.

The manuscript is valuable, providing precise conclusions and recommendations to policy makers. However, as far as I understood the manuscript, I have two major concerns: one is regarding the methodology - mainly the unclear description of how the representativeness was assured  - and the seconds regards the conclusions: what is new in the fact that officially owning the land use rights is beneficial for land users? 

 

1. In spite of using an already consecrate method, the authors failed, in my opinion , in describing the method and making the reader understand how representativeness and impartiality was assured. 

 

2. Also, despite very detailed and informative discussions and very structured conclusions, the manuscript failed in providing applicable recommendations, other that to promote clear land use and tenure land rights to the communities. 

 

3. Here are some detailed comments:

 

The title of the manuscript should include also the fact that the research also focuses the ownership type, as well as the fact that only a region of Bangladesh in focused.

 

The abstract is missing the recommendations (it says to consider the evident findings of the study but some more precise indications should be there)

 

Line 105. research questions. Perhaps it would be better to mention that it is about the perceived value of ES. In general, I dont understand why the authors didn't use the ES abbreviation. 

 

Line 115-116. Maybe a better formulation would be  ... only less than a quarter of them.......

 

Line 118, 119 , the latin name of the species should be in italic mode

 

Line 124-125. It is not very clear, Please try to rephrase. 

 

Line 153-172 . This paragraph is describing the tenure structure. Taking into consideration the importance of this aspect for the study, I would suggest a clearer description. What is the tenure structure (how much state, how much community and so on). What are the patterns of using the state land (forest and non forest). Are there plantations of teak/gamar on private lands? The authors have tried to make this description but more clarity can be brought. Even some tables or graph can be used in order to help the reader to understand the situation without using too much text.

 

Lane 160-161. The sentence seem to have no predicate. 

 

Line 205 - 2017 (and the entire 2.2. section): Based on the information provided in the manuscript is not clear enough how representativeness of the villages is assured. How were the villages selected? What villages were selected? It is suggested that villages were selected in 2015-1016, more than 5 years ago. Have the socio-economic conditions remained the same? The manuscript said that the villages were selected based on the representativeness of their dominant characteristics but is not clear what are the dominant characteristics. The manuscript didn't detailed the differences in the communities selected. Maybe a map with all the selected villages would have been helpful for the reader to understand the criteria for representativeness as well as the differences between the selected communities.  

 

Line 218-220 - Should the reader understand that there was a workshop for every village?  How were the participants selected?

 

Line 230: I suggest to make the map more informative by figuring all the villages/communities that have been selected. One idea would be to have some other details in the map for the reader to easier understand the representativity of the selected communities.

 

Line 243-244. How was the consensus reached? Can be the case that some leaders of the community have influenced the results? Can be the case that the members of the group just answered what they would consider that the researchers would like to hear?

 

Line 270-272. The manuscript mentions that there were distinct differences between the selected communities. Did these differences reflect into the results? For instance did the different communities indicat differently on the ecosystem services preferences and reasons for preference? The same for other results. 

 

Also, despite very detailed and informative discussions and very structured conclusions, the manuscript failed in providing applicable recommendations, other that to promote clear land use and tenure land rights to the communities. Please try to reshape the recommendation part, maybe also reflecting details of the selected villages/representativeness.

 

There are certain limitations of the study (actually som of them, such as not using direct interviews) that deserve being mentioned. Aren't there any other limitations? 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

It has been interesting to read the manuscript with the title Land use preferences for ecosystem services and well-being in Bangladesh  and see how focus groups related methods can be used for dropping conclusions regarding ways to address the land-use and tenure context in order to improve the wellbeing of Bangladesh communities   The paper is part of an array of studies on the study area focusing the impact of land use on the well-being ob communities members with important applicability on policy elaboration and enforcement process.

The manuscript is valuable, providing precise conclusions and recommendations to policy makers. However, as far as I understood the manuscript, I have two major concerns: one is regarding the methodology - mainly the unclear description of how the representativeness was assured  - and the seconds regards the conclusions: what is new in the fact that officially owning the land use rights is beneficial for land users? 

 

Point 1: In spite of using an already consecrate method, the authors failed, in my opinion , in describing the method and making the reader understand how representativeness and impartiality was assured. 

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion. We have revised the methodology indicating the criteria for selecting the villages and their representation in the focus group meeting.

The distinct 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 a higher reliance on swidden farming and forests for subsistence and cash income without secure land ownership title [30]. In contrast, people with secure land ownership practised swidden farming to a lesser extent in intermediate and on-road locations. They were more engaged in low-lying agricultural cropping practices and planted tree areas with fruit orchards. Of the total of twelve villages, we randomly se-lected eight villages for focus group meetings, covering 2-3 villages from each location. Taking account of the characteristics (Table 1), we generally consider the communities of villages within one location are more similar in land use practice and ownership than others.

Point 2: Also, despite very detailed and informative discussions and very structured conclusions, the manuscript failed in providing applicable recommendations, other that to promote clear land use and tenure land rights to the communities. 

Response 2: We have added key recommendations in the conclusion.

Some broader recommendations can be drawn from this study. Firstly, forest and agricultural land management practices should consider the local community’s preferences for ecosystem services from their desired land uses to realise their future well-being needs. Secondly, an integrated management approach may be undertaken with trees and fruit-based land use strategies to maximise ecosystem services values as well-being is supported by more than one land use practice. Thirdly, a strategy to support greater land ownership for local ethnic people would allow them to a secure tenure right on forests, agriculture and fruit orchard, among others. In doing so, there will be a strong possibility to maintain synergistic co-existence of the land uses and thereby sustain the provision of ES in meeting multiple well-being needs in a landscape. 

Point 3: Here are some detailed comments:

The title of the manuscript should include also the fact that the research also focuses the ownership type, as well as the fact that only a region of Bangladesh in focused.

Response 3: We have revised the title:

Land use preference for ecosystem services and well-being in Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

Point 4: The abstract is missing the recommendations (it says to consider the evident findings of the study but some more precise indications should be there)

Response 4: We have provided a recommending statement in the abstract.

Point 5:

Line 105. research questions. Perhaps it would be better to mention that it is about the perceived value of ES. In general, I dont understand why the authors didn't use the ES abbreviation. 

Response 5: We have revised the research question:

Does the ES value differ between land uses?

Point 6: Line 115-116. Maybe a better formulation would be  ... only less than a quarter of them.......

Response 6: We have revised the sentence:

Forests account for just over 30% of the land use in the region, although only less than a quarter of them is only natural forest in the CHT.

Point 7: Line 118, 119 , the latin name of the species should be in italic mode

Response 7: We have italicised the species name.

Point 8: Line 124-125. It is not very clear, Please try to rephrase. 

Response 8: We have rephrased the sentence:

Despite the forest reliance, minimal tenure rights exist within the local ethnic population to access forestland, including planted land use across the region.

Point 9: Line 153-172 . This paragraph is describing the tenure structure. Taking into consideration the importance of this aspect for the study, I would suggest a clearer description. What is the tenure structure (how much state, how much community and so on). What are the patterns of using the state land (forest and non forest). Are there plantations of teak/gamar on private lands? The authors have tried to make this description but more clarity can be brought. Even some tables or graph can be used in order to help the reader to understand the situation without using too much text.

Response 9: We have added a table representing the forestland ownership composition in CHT. Please see the table 1.

Point 10: Lane 160-161. The sentence seem to have no predicate. 

Response 10: We have rephrased the line:

Other 65 percent of forestland, especially unclassed state forests (i.e. barren lands without significant tree cover) is under the control of local land administration.

Point 11: Line 205 - 2017 (and the entire 2.2. section): Based on the information provided in the manuscript is not clear enough how representativeness of the villages is assured. How were the villages selected? What villages were selected? It is suggested that villages were selected in 2015-1016, more than 5 years ago. Have the socio-economic conditions remained the same? The manuscript said that the villages were selected based on the representativeness of their dominant characteristics but is not clear what are the dominant characteristics. The manuscript didn't detailed the differences in the communities selected. Maybe a map with all the selected villages would have been helpful for the reader to understand the criteria for representativeness as well as the differences between the selected communities.  

 

Response 11: We have provided the characteristics of the location and villages in Table 2. We also stated about the selection of eight villages in the manuscript now:

Finally, of the total of twelve villages, we randomly selected eight villages for focus group meetings, covering 2-3 villages from each location. Thus, the communities of the villages within one location represent the similarities in land use and ownership con-text than other l different to others.

This empirical data was collected as part of the PhD study and global research, over four years, along with >10 years of experience of the first author working in the region. To our best knowledge, there is no significant policy on the socio-economic improvement of local ethnic people, forest management, and land ownership has been taken within the past seven years. No mentionable land ownership changes were observed that might affect the data validity, particularly the ethnic people's preference for ES.

Along with this dataset, some articles were published in 2020 and 2021. A couple of manuscripts are also in consideration for publication in the coming months, reflecting the validity of the data. 

Point 12: Line 218-220 - Should the reader understand that there was a workshop for every village?  How were the participants selected?

Response 12:  

We conducted focus group meetings in 8 villages (one in each village).  Each focus group consisted of 6–8 individuals with various occupations, including forest users, swidden farmers, commercial farmers, knowledgeable people, and politically elected community members from the group’s village. category.

Point 13: Line 230: I suggest to make the map more informative by figuring all the villages/communities that have been selected. One idea would be to have some other details in the map for the reader to easier understand the representativity of the selected communities.

Response 13: We have revised the map and presented the location of the studied villages.

Point 14: Line 243-244. How was the consensus reached? Can be the case that some leaders of the community have influenced the results? Can be the case that the members of the group just answered what they would consider that the researchers would like to hear?

Response 14: We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion.

Our habitat valuation exercise considered the representation of diverse participants in each focus group workshop. We have asked the participants specific questions about what they consider important land use and preferred ecosystem services to meet their well-being. Rather than ecosystem services terms used directly, we explored their views towards the land uses and the derived benefits. So, they initially mentioned their preferences for land use, and ecosystem services and then reached an objective conclusion based on the scores.

 We arranged a deliberative discussion in each focus group allowing the participants to select their preferred land use for important ecosystem services and well-being. The participants only reached a consensus about the final score distribution for each land use benefit of ecosystem services.

Point 15: Line 270-272. The manuscript mentions that there were distinct differences between the selected communities. Did these differences reflect into the results? For instance did the different communities indicat differently on the ecosystem services preferences and reasons for preference? The same for other results. 

Response 15: We only considered the land use and ownership criteria to examine the differences between the communities in ES valuation. Based on these two criteria we found the value of ES differ within the preference of land uses. Among the land uses, the forest was the most preferred, followed by fruit orchards, swidden/fallow, low-lying land and water bodies.

Looking at the ownership perspective, participants in state land-owned areas, reported forest for all the well-being needs than others. Within the state and private-community land-owned areas, people showed more preferences for forestland use for the ability to avoid disease, energy and safe shelter which is slightly higher than those in private ownership.

*We have not looked at the ethnic differences in the preference and valuation of ES. We can consider this suggestion in future research.

Point 16: Also, despite very detailed and informative discussions and very structured conclusions, the manuscript failed in providing applicable recommendations, other that to promote clear land use and tenure land rights to the communities. Please try to reshape the recommendation part, maybe also reflecting details of the selected villages/representativeness.

Response 16: We have added some broad recommendations in the conclusion section:

 

Some broader recommendations can be drawn from this study. Firstly, forest and agricultural land management practices should consider the local community’s preferences for ecosystem services from their desired land uses to realise their future well-being needs. Secondly, an integrated management approach may be undertaken with trees and fruit-based land use strategies to maximise ecosystem services values as well-being is supported by more than one land use practice. Thirdly, a strategy to support greater land ownership for local ethnic people would allow them to a secure tenure right on forests, agriculture and fruit orchard, among others. In doing so, there will be a strong possibility to maintain synergistic co-existence of the land uses and thereby sustain the provision of ES in meeting multiple well-being needs in a landscape .

 

Point 17: There are certain limitations of the study (actually som of them, such as not using direct interviews) that deserve being mentioned. Aren't there any other limitations? 

Response 17: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions. We have added key limitations of the research.

Our study carried out the focus group meeting than individual interviews or surveys. The group approach has given us a better understanding of how the majority of people in each location value ecosystem services. However, we acknowledge that the focus group may have masked individual heterogeneity on the preferences of the ecosystem services from specific land uses to meet the well-being needs, within this culturally diverse area of the country. Individual contexts of the rural ethnic population with different socio-economic characteristics, ethnic backgrounds and level of land ownership may be valuable information in covering the breadth of ES value at the household level, preference of land uses and target the management interventions for improved forest and land use practices, to meet their most well-being needs.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Land use is highly linked with the provision of ecosystem services. Moreover, the biotic and abiotic disturbances on natural vegetation have a profound effect on temporal changes of the ecosystem services (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106564, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119788157.ch2)

Give some examples of goods/services provided by land use (such as erosion, recreation etc).

Highlighted the importance to retain and sustain forest as also depicted from recent environmental protection guildness.

Is there any similar research to the nest of the author’s knowledge? Also, what are the main novelty points?

Please add a map representing the study area with a backround of the terrain or satellite image .

Is climate change a threat for ecosystem service provision? Directly due to changes on climate pattern or indirectly due to disturbances on vegetation due to climate variables (drought, wildfires etc).

Add in the discussion part some thoughts for future research goals.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Point 1: 

Land use is highly linked with the provision of ecosystem services. Moreover, the biotic and abiotic disturbances on natural vegetation have a profound effect on temporal changes of the ecosystem services (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2022.106564, https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119788157.ch2)

Response 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion of the literature. We cited one of the suggested papers in our manuscript. 

Point 2: Give some examples of goods/services provided by land use (such as erosion, recreation etc).

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have identified the local communities' preference for ecosystem services from perceived land use values. For instance, our results found that the participants considered soil erosion contribution of forests to enhance their ability to reduce ecological shocks. 

Point 3: Highlighted the importance to retain and sustain forest as also depicted from recent environmental protection guildness.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the comment. We already discussed the policy implication of our findings in the conclusion section. 

Point 4: Is there any similar research to the nest of the author’s knowledge? Also, what are the main novelty points?

Response 4: We kindly request the reviewer to clarify the first part of the comment. 

In response to the second part, our research has applied a community-based ES valuation approach from land uses within three distinct social-ecological contexts. Indeed our approach is the first of its kind reproducing habitat valuation to participatory ecosystem services assessment.  The reviewer can find the details of the experimental approach in the selection of study communities mentioned in section 2.2. 

Point 5: Please add a map representing the study area with a backround of the terrain or satellite image.

Response 5: We have added a map in the manuscript. 

Point 6: Is climate change a threat for ecosystem service provision? Directly due to changes on climate pattern or indirectly due to disturbances on vegetation due to climate variables (drought, wildfires etc).

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for the concern. During the group discussion, we didn’t find any aspect of climate change related to ecosystem services provision. However, we provided a future direction for research. We will consider this aspect in future research. 

Point 7: Add in the discussion part some thoughts for future research goals.

Response 7: We have provided future research direction in the conclusion section. 

The results of this study could be extended through further research to broaden-ing understanding of the role of land use preferences in addressing the breadth of ecosystem services’ contributions to well-being and decision-making. We consider specific areas worth investigation in future are: i) integrated valuation of ecosystem services to determine the synergies and trade-offs between and within ecosystem ser-vices to inform forest and land management; ii) individual stakeholder’s land use preferences on ecosystem services and well-being; iii) underlying social, ecological and economic drivers in mediating multiple values of ecosystem services in landscape management; iv) the links between climatic change and land use and impacts on the provisions of ecosystem services; and v) how to address challenges and opportunities of land ownership in operationalising ecosystem services-based forest and landscape restoration.