Ecosystem services and agricultural land-use practices: a case study of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

  • Rasul G
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
154Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Land degradation due to inappropriate agricultural activities, as well as the environmental and social effects associated with these practices, is accelerating in many developing regions of the world. This trend underlines the importance of measuring environmental costs and benefits to improve policy making with respect to land use and agriculture. Using nonmarket valuation techniques, this article estimates the value of environmental services associated with four agricultural land-use systems in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh and compares their relative profitability from private and social perspectives. The financial analysis reveals that annual cash crops are the most profitable shortterm land use and agroforestry is the least profitable, with horticulture and farm forestry providing benefits intermediate between these two systems. However, the relatively larger returns from annual cash cropping lead to higher environmental costs such as soil erosion, forfeited carbon sequestration, and biodiversity loss. When the environmental costs are taken into account, annual cash crops appear to be the most costly land-use system, with agroforestry and farm forestry becoming more profitable. The findings demonstrate the tradeoffs and synergies between relatively more environmentally sustainable and harmful land-use practices. Financial incentives to encourage more prudent agricultural activities are needed to transform tradeoffs into synergies. This article examines different financial incentive mechanisms—including payments for environmental services—and makes several policy recommendations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rasul, G. (2009). Ecosystem services and agricultural land-use practices: a case study of the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh. Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 5(2), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2009.11908032

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free