Landscape\'s capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park

Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park Md Shawkat Islam Sohel a,n, Sharif Ahmed Mukul a,b,c, Benjamin Burkhard d,e a

Tropical Forestry Group, School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia School of Geography, Planning and Environemtal Management, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia Centre for Research on Land-use Sustainability, Maijdi, Noakhali 3800, Bangladesh d Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Kiel University, Olshausenstrasse40, 24098 Kiel, Germany e Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research ZALF, EberswalderStraße 84, 15374 Müncheberg, Germany b c

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 28 May 2014 Received in revised form 13 November 2014 Accepted 24 November 2014

Land uses/land covers (LULC) are closely related to the integrity of ecosystems and associated provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services (ES). Anthropogenic activities continuously influence ecological integrity and ES through changes in LULC. An integrative approach is essential to understand and measure the relations between ecosystem functioning, associated ES and the relative contributions of the different system components. Here, using a locally justified ES scoring matrix, we linked different LULC types to ecological integrity and ES supply in the Lawachara National Park of Bangladesh. The results were used to compile spatially explicit ES maps. Our analysis revealed relatively high capacities of mixed tropical evergreen forests to supply a broad range of ES and to support ecological integrity, followed by tea (Camellia chinesis) gardens and rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) plantations. Other LULC types located on the edge or on the periphery of the park showed comparably lower ES supply capacities. Our study is the first of its type carried out in Bangladesh and can be seen as a first screening study of available ES and their supply capacities. The results can be used to form the base for ES based landscape management and future conservation priorities in the area. & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecosystem service matrix Ecosystem integrity Spatial mapping Lawachara National Park Bangladesh

1. Introduction Interest in ecosystem services (ES) has grown tremendously in the last decade among a wide range of sectors (see recent reviews in Vigerstol and Aukema, 2011; Seppelt et al., 2012; Alamgir et al., 2014; Sohel et al. 2014). However, several studies have reported a widespread decline in and unsustainable use of ES across the world (WRI, 2001; MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005; Abson et al., 2014; Sohel et al. 2014). Areas that are important for maintaining ecosystem structures, processes and functions that are the base for ES supply have to be carefully managed to secure ES supply at present and in the future (van Jaarsveld et al., 2005; Chan et al., 2006; Egoh et al., 2007). As the importance of ES is gaining wider recognition, there has been a growing need for tools that could potentially provide information to decision makers on ES supply and the effects of land use management on those services (Portman, 2013).

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 61 481134263. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M.S.I. Sohel).

The process of identifying and quantifying ES has increasingly been recognized as a valuable tool for the efficient allocation of environmental resources (Alkemade et al., 2014; Heal et al., 2005; MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005). ES supply depends on geo-biophysical conditions, ecosystem structures, processes and functions as well as their changes over space and time due to natural or human-induced land cover, land use and climatic changes (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2010). Because of the spatial peculiarities of ES supply, mapping their distribution and change over time has the potential to aggregate complex information (Burkhard et al., 2014a, 2014b). Such ES mapping can be used by decision makers, e.g. land managers, as a powerful tool for the support of landscape sustainability assessments (Swetnam et al., 2011). Unfortunately, there is still a clear lack of information relevant for local-scale decision making (Turner and Daily, 2008; Daily et al., 2009). Therefore, explicit ES quantification and mapping are considered as main requirements for the implementation of the ES concept into environmental institutions and decision making (Daily and Matson, 2008). For a more realistic and holistic appraisal of ES, both their supply by specific ecosystems as well as the characteristic patterns of various ecosystems/land cover types on the landscape scale (i.e. landscape structures) must be taken into account

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015 2212-0416/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

2

(Burkhard et al., 2010). In order to transfer the ES concept to landscape planning, integrated and easily applicable assessment approaches are needed (Burkhard et al., 2010; de Groot, 2006). With these requirements considered, Burkhard et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b and 2014a, 2014b) proposed a new approach of mapping ES. In their ‘ES matrix’ method, expert judgments are combined with quantitative data to assess landscapes’ capacities to provide ES. Based on the ES matrix approach, this study addresses the biophysical assessment of ES supply capacities of various land use/land cover (LULC) types in the Lawachara National Park and its surrounding areas in north-east Bangladesh. The present study can be seen as a screening exercise, useful for an initial identification and a first qualification of ES supply areas in a major conservation area of the country. Until now, no comparable ES mapping study has been conducted in Bangladesh (Mukul, 2014). Therefore, this study is also the first of its kind in the Lawachara National Park, a biodiversity hotspot zone of Bangladesh. The results can be useful for decision makers to develop more holistic and locally accepted conservation strategies as well as to manage the natural resources and the surrounding landscapes in a more sustainable manner.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Study area The study was conducted in the Lawachara National Park (LNP) and its surrounding areas in the north-eastern part of Bangladesh (Fig. 1). Currently the park covers an area of 1250 ha, and there has been a plan to extend the park area by an additional 281 ha in the adjoining West Bhanugach Reserve Forest. The LNP, being situated in a high rainfall area with mixed tropical evergreen forests, is a biodiversity hotspot in the country with many endangered, threatened and endemic species of fauna and flora (Mukul, 2008; 2014). An estimated 167 species of higher plants, 26 mammalian species (including five non-human primates), 246 bird species, 4 amphibian and 6 reptile species have so far been recorded from the area (NSP, 2006a). A total of 26 villages and tribal settlements inhabited by the Khasia, Tripura and Garo tribes have different stakes (i.e. various types of forest resource collection) within the national park as well as with the adjoining reserved forest (Mollah and Kundu, 2004; Mukul et al., 2014). Most of the villagers and settlers are financially poor, and rely largely on the forests to sustain their livelihoods (Rashid et al., 2013). There are nine types of LULC present in the national park and its surrounding areas (Table 1; Fig. 2). 2.2. Framework for the ecosystem service assessment The ES assessment analysed existing landscape data to evaluate ES supply capacities in a spatially explicit manner (after Burkhard et al., 2009a, 2009b). First, available LULC data were linked to expert judgments about the different LULC types capacities to supply various ES. The LULC data were collected from the Nishorgo support project (NSP, 2006b) at a spatial resolution of 24 m  24 m. A non-monetary evaluation scheme based on indicators (see Supplementary material 1) that were categorized and mapped on a relative supply scale was applied. The ES supply mapping method has been presented before in Burkhard et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b, 2014a, 2014b). This is the first time ES supply was mapped in Bangladesh.

Müller (2005) and Burkhard et al. (2012a; 2012b) developed a set of indicators based on ES lists provided for example by de Groot (2006), MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005 and Costanza et al., (1997). The list of ecological integrity components was described in Müller and Burkhard (2007). For the present study, indicators for ecological integrity and ES were adopted from Burkhard et al. (2009a, 2009b; 2012a, 2012b) (Supplementary material 1). 2.4. Mapping landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services ES supply is strongly dependent on landscape structures and ecosystem functions (Burkhard et al., 2012a, 2012b). Ecosystem functions change with varying degrees of landscape naturalness or intactness. Therefore, potential ES hotspot areas (i.e. areas that provide large amounts of particular ES, often from a comparably small area; see García-Nieto et al., 2013; Egoh et al., 2008; Gimona and van der Horst 2007 for details), were given priority during the assessment. To begin the ES mapping exercise, LULC classes (9 different types; see Table 1) were identified from an existing geo-referenced LULC map of the study area. An ES matrix was then developed linking a set of 7 ecological integrity and 22 ES indicators (on the x-axis) to 9 LULC types (on the y-axis) (Table 2). The landscape's capacities to supply the individual ES were assessed and ranked on a scale ranging from 0 to 5, where 0¼no relevant capacity; 1¼ low relevant capacity; 2¼relevant capacity; 3¼medium relevant capacity; 4¼high relevant capacity; and 5¼very high relevant capacity (Burkhard et al., 2009a, 2009b). The scoring of the individual ecological integrity components and the respective ES was based on local experts' opinions collected through a series of participatory scoring exercises supplemented by the authors’ experience from different research projects (e.g., Mukul 2014, 2008; Mukul et al., 2014; Akhter et al., 2013; Halim et al., 2008) in the area. 2.5. Participatory ecosystem service assessment For the participatory scoring exercise, 10 local experts were consulted and selected based on: (a) their familiarity with the area, and (b) an adequate background on ecological aspects in the different LULC types of Lawachara. Selected experts included: local forest department officials, tea estate and rubber garden managers and indigenous group leaders living within the national park. Altogether four focus group discussions (FGD) were arranged. During these discussions both the local experts and two of the authors participated to perform the scoring exercise. Before starting the participatory scoring exercise, a briefing was given to the local experts about each ecological integrity and ES component. Several field trips with the local experts were arranged to different LULC types of the Lawachara area to get an idea about the conditions of the different ES components before the interviews. Photographs of each LULC class were taken during the field trips and used during the participatory scoring exercise. Three FGDs were first conducted as a “warm-up” exercise of scoring before the final scoring. The last (i.e. fourth) FGD was then used for the final ES scoring and mapping. In order for a consensus to be reached among the experts, they were asked to explain each score. Based on that explanation, the group members voted anonymously on the prioritization of the scores. Later, maps were prepared based on the individual ES score rather than averaging them.

2.3. Indicators for ecological integrity and ecosystem services

3. Results

The derivation of suitable indicators for the assessment of the individual LULC's ecosystem functions and ES supply capacities is an important step in order to know what will be evaluated. Ideally, ES indicators need to be quantifiable and sensitive to LULC changes.

3.1. Quantification of ecosystem service supply Table 2 shows relatively high capacities of the forests to provide a broad range of provisioning, regulating and cultural ES and to

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

3

Fig. 1. Location of the study area . (Source: NSP, 2007)

support ecological integrity, followed by rubber plantations and tea gardens. Crops, livestock, fodder, capture fisheries, aquaculture, wild foods, timber, wood fuel, energy (biomass), medicine and freshwater supply have been considered as provisioning ES in this study. Among 11 indicators of provisioning services, forests received high scores (5) for timber, wood fuel, fodder, medicine, biomass for energy, wild food and livestock (wild animal). Experts opined that among these provisioning ES, timber and wood fuel supplies have great importance for the livelihood of local people. Tea gardens are perceived greater capacities for provisioning ES supply in terms of crops (5). Agricultural land were given higher score for crop provision (5) but provides less of the other provisioning ES compared

to other land use types. Regulating ES are often more difficult to quantify than provisioning ES and some components can overlap with ecological integrity processes (Burkhard et al., 2014a, 2014b). Scoring them in a logical way is a critical part of the assessment process. Similar to the other ES, forests were given priority in scoring for providing higher amounts of all nine regulating services, followed by tea gardens and rubber plantations. Human modified landscapes were given significantly lower scores by the experts for regulating services supply. Recreational and aesthetic values were considered as cultural ES in this study. Again, forests showed to have higher capacities, followed by tea gardens and rubber plantations (Fig. 3).

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

4

3.2. Spatial distribution of ecosystem service supply Combining the data presented in Table 2 with the GIS LULC data, maps of provisioning, regulating and cultural ES supply capacities were compiled (Fig. 4). In the maps, dark green patches show high capacities of ecological integrity support or ES supply. In contrast, pink and lighter green patches show areas of lower capacities. The radar plots (Fig. 5) show the results of the FGDs for all assessed ecological integrity and ecosystem service components in all LULC types.

4. Discussion The capacity to supply particular ES vary strongly between (and also within) different LULC types, since ecosystem structures and functions are different between and within them. All LULC types supplied multiple ES, with forests contributing highest to the overall ES supply, which was an expected result. Forests are characterized by many different species of trees, herbs and shrubs and are generally rich in biodiversity (Mukul, 2008; NSP, 2006a), leading to functional diversity and the supply of multiple ES. The importance of forests for provisioning ES such as timber, fuel wood, medicinal plants and wild foods has been reported in many studies (Nautiyal and Kaul, 1999; Lette and de Boo, 2002; Vihervaara et al., 2010). Greater human-modified LULC types (settlements, encroached Table 1 Extents of respective LULCtypes in Lawachara (Data source: NSP, 2006b). Land-use/cover

Area (ha)

% of total

Agricultural land Encroached agri-land Encroached settlement area Fallow land Forest Rubber plantation Settlements Tea garden Water-bodies Total

4415.91 28.01 15.95 600.04 3051.47 410.46 4390.13 5389.77 70.09 18,371.8

24.04 0.15 0.09 3.27 16.61 2.23 23.90 29.34 0.38 100

0

areas) and fallow lands showed very low or no relevant capacities to support ecological integrity or to supply regulating, provisioning or cultural ES. For cultural ES, Hartig and Staats (2006) found a similar pattern with a clear preference of natural landscapes (forests in their study) compared to urban areas. Agriculture is a dominant form of land use globally (FAO, 2009) providing key ES such as crops for human nutrition (Power, 2010). On the other hand, fallow land and settlement sites have comparably low ecological functions, and do not supply substantial ES compared to many other LULC types. Burkhard et al. (2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b) and Kroll et al. (2012) reported similar findings for a human-modified landscape in central eastern Germany. Forests (both natural and artificial) play a vital role in maintaining regulating ES, for example by water budget regulation, retaining soil and preventing its erosion. Deforestation has resulted in increased surface water runoff, changes in water flow and groundwater regimes, decreased water quality and rise in the severity and frequency of floods (Le-Maitre et al., 2007). Forests also regulate climate and air quality due to their ability to store carbon and to filter particles. Overall, less-disturbed, more natural LULC types have higher capacities to supply regulating ES. In our study these were forests, tea gardens and rubber plantations. Anthropogenic land use impacts often result in the optimization of a limited number of selected ES, which is also reported in various studies (Burkhard et al., 2009a, 2009b; 2012a, 2012b; Kreuter et al., 2001). Therefore, lower ES supply scores have been assigned by the experts to these LULC types. To give an example of possible quantifications of selected LULC changes and the supply of related ES, literature and data for the forest land cover type was reviewed. However, there is only limited literature available, particularly regarding Lawachara National Park. A study conducted by Halim et al. (2008) showed that the forest cover of the Lawachara National Park and its surrounding area was drastically reduced between the years 1988 and 1996 (Fig. 6). After that, forests have increased gradually from 1996 to 2006 (Fig. 6). This is a promising result of co-management practices initiated by the Nishorgo Support Project (NSP) of the Bangladesh Forest Department and has been practiced in the Lawachara National Park since 1996 (NSP, 2007). A number of initiatives have been taken to motivate local people and encourage them in AIG (Alternative

1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000 Kilometers

Fig. 2. LULC maps of the study area (Source: NSP, 2006b).

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

5

Table 2 ES assessment matrix illustrating the capacities of different LULC typesto support ecological integrity and to supply ES in the Lawachara National Park. The values/colours indicate the following capacities: 0/rosy¼ no relevant capacity; 1/grey green¼ low relevant capacity; 2/light green¼ relevant capacity; 3/yellow green¼medium relevant capacity; 4/blue green¼high relevant capacity; and 5/dark green¼ very high relevant capacity.

Fig. 3. Snapshots of the key LULC types in Lawachara and surrounding areas (clockwise from the top left): (i) forest path within the Lawachara National Park; (ii) tea garden in the vicinity of the park; (iii) settlement in the Lawachara area; (iv) adjoining fallow area; (v) rubber garden in the area, and (vi) agricultural field surrounding the park (Photo credits: Sharif A. Mukul, 2012).

Income Generation) activities. As a result, the extent of forest cover has been increased, although at a relatively slow rate. According to NSP site reports (Mollah et al., 2003), about 65% of the local people are poor or very poor and earn their livelihood working as day labourers by collecting fuel wood or other forest products. This is the reason why the experts gave significantly higher scores for provisioning ES to the forests compared to other LULC types. ES assessments through expert elucidation or community opinion collection is gaining popularity due to its quick, simple and efficient application (Quijas et al., 2012; Jacobs etal., 2014; Hou et al., 2013; Burkhard et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2012a, 2012b, 2014a, 2014b; Plieninger et al., 2013). However, this approach has been criticized because of its unclear reliability, the lack of transparency in survey methods, insufficient agreement among survey participants and limited validity (Jacobs et al., 2014). However, careful selection of participants with at least some knowledge of ES, a clear description of all assessed ES, the use of very specific questions, the supply of additional material such as maps, satellite images, photographs, information from literature

(quantitative and qualitative) and careful data evaluation (involving statistics) can improve the results' reliability and reduce uncertainties (Jacobs et al., 2014; Hou et al., 2013). Criticism referring to consensus achievement among participants can be overcome (as done in in our case) by asking the participants to explain their scores. Based on the explanations, the group members anonymously voted on the prioritization of the score given by the participant. Seppelt et al. (2012) found that out of 153 articles on ES studies, between 45–80% did not provide information about uncertainty and validation of their results. In the case of expert-based assessments, the ES matrix scores can be validated with qualitative as well as quantitative data (Jacobs et al., 2014; Hou et al., 2013). One advantage of this method is that it can be applied on different spatial scales. However, risks of applying imperfect data are normally higher when it comes to decisions on large-scale land-use changes (Jacobs et al., 2014). Therefore, applications a local scale may produce more reliable results as the complexity of landscapes normally increases with increasing spatial scale.

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

6

Fig. 4. Maps of selected individual ES supply for the Lawachara National Park and its surrounding area (values of selected individual ES as displayed in Fig. 5).

5. Conclusions The expert-based ES assessment method turned out to be an effective way to depict the importance of different LULC types for the supply of multiple ES. However, when possible the results

should be checked with quantitative data from measurements. This would make the assessment more reliable, but also more costly and time-consuming. Though expert-based ES assessments have had some criticism, this approach is very useful for gaining quick overviews about LULC types' capacities to supply different

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

7

Vegetation cover (ha)

Fig. 5. From top left (clockwise): ecological integrity, provisioning services, cultural services and regulating services (assessment based on FGD, ten participants during 2013).

1900 1850 1800 1750 1700 1650 1600 1988

1996

1997

2006

Year Fig. 6. Trends in vegetation cover change in the Lawachara National Park and its surrounding area of Bangladesh from the year 1988 to 2006 (Figure source: Halim et al., 2008).

ES, especially in data-poor environments. Developing and applying a better data base, including information on carbon sequestration, crop production, water flows, nutrient cycling, air quality or aesthetic values of the different LULC will improve the ES quantification and thereby increase the interpretability of the ES maps in future. The resulting ES assessment maps and radar plots can provide important information for natural resource management planning and decision making. Forests showed the highest

capacities to support ecosystem integrity and to supply regulating, provisioning and cultural ES. Nevertheless, tea gardens, rubber plantations, agricultural lands and water bodies were also shown to be important LULC types. The results from this study have demonstrated that natural LULC types are important suppliers of various ES in the region. An increase in the forested areas can increase the overall ecological integrity of the region and also induce new forms of ecotourism and recreational activities, leading to supplies of new ES. Social and cultural components of ES supply were not sufficiently considered in the present LULC-based study. Therefore, the stakeholders in this region should actively participate in the managing process of possible land use changes and reach a balanced solution between socio-economic benefits and enhancement of the ecosystems' integrity, in order to sustainably use the natural resources.

Acknowledgements The first author (MSI Sohel) would like to thank Professor Felix Müller for providing useful and inspiring lectures about the ES concept and their mapping strategy during the course work under

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i

M.S.I. Sohel et al. / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

8

the Erasmus mundus master programme in Ecohydrology. The useful comments and feedbacks provided by the editor and two anonymous reviewers tremendously improved the quality of the article. Thanks also due to Ms. Chloe Gudmundsson for her effort in improving the language of the paper. Appendix A. Supplementary information Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015. References Abson, D.J., von Wehrden, H., Baumgärtner, S., Fischer, J., Hanspach, J., Härdtle, W., Heinrichs, H., KleinA., M., Langa, D.J., Martens, P., Walmsley, D., 2014. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecol. Econ. 103, 29–37. Akhter, S., Raihan, F., Sohel, M.S.I., Syed, M.A., Das, S.K., Alamgir, M., 2013. Coping with climate change by using indigenous knowledge of ethnic communities from in and around Lawachara National Park of Bangladesh. J. For. Sci 29, 181–193. Alamgir, M., Pert, PL, Turton, SM., 2014. A review of ecosystem services research in Australia reveals a gap in integrating climate change and impacts on ecosystem services. Inter. J. Biodiver. Sci. Ecosyst. Ser.Manag. 10, 112–127. Alkemade, R., Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K., 2014. Quantifying ecosystem services and indicators for science, policy and practice (Special issue). Ecol. Indic. 37, 161–266. Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F., 2014a. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demand—concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc. Online 34, 1–32. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009a. Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc. Online 15, 1–22. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009b. Landscapes' capacities toprovide ecosystem services—a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc. Online 15, 1–22. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012a. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012b. Mapping ecosystem servicesupply demand and budgets. Ecol. Indic. 21, 17–29. Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y, Müller, F., 2014b. Ecosystem service potentials, flows and demands—concepts for spatial localisation, indication and quantification. Landsc.Online 34, 1–32. Burkhard, B., Petrosillo, I., Costanza, R., 2010. Ecosystem services—bridging ecology, economy and social sciences. Ecol. Comp. 7, 257–259. Chan, K.M.A., Shaw, M.R., Cameron, D.R., Underwood, E.C., Daily, G.C., 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Biol. 4, 2138–2152. Costanza, R., D'Arge, R., de Groot, R.S., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Daily, G.C., Matson, P.A., 2008. Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 9455–9456. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decisionmaking:time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ 7 (1), 21–28. de Groot, R., 2006. Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 75, 175–186. Egoh, B., Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Knight, A.T., Cowling, M.R., van Jaarsveld, A.S., Welz, A., 2007. Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review. Ecol. Econ. 63, 714–721. Egoh, B., Reyers, B., Rouget, M., Richardson, D.M., Le-Maitre, D.C., van Jaarsveld, A.S., 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 127, 135–140. FAO, 2009. Statistics from www.faostat.fao.org. Updated April 2009. Rome, Italy. García-Nieto, A.P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I., Martín-López, B, 2013. Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 126–138. Gimona, A., van der Horst, D., 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland. Landsc. Ecol. 22, 1255–1264. Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., 2010. The links between biodiversity ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D., Frid, C. (Eds.), Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 110–139. Halim, M.A., Shahid, A., Chowdhury, M.S.H., Nahar, M.N., Sohel, M.S.I., Jahangir, N. M., Koike, M., 2008. Evaluation of land-use pattern change in the West Bhanugach reserved forest, Bangladesh, using Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques. J. For. Res. 19, 193–198. Hartig, T., Staats, H., 2006. The need for psychological restoration as a determinant of environmental preferences. J. Environ. Psychol. 26, 215–226. Heal, G.M., Barbier, E.B., Boyle, K.J., Covich, A.P., Gloss, S.P., Hershner, C.H., Hoehn, J.P., Pringle, C.M., Polasky, S., Segerson, K., Schrader-Frechette, K., 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Hou, Y., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2013. Uncertainties in landscape analysis and ecosystem service assessment. J. Environ. Manag. 127, S117–S131. Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Daele, T.V., Staes, J., Schneiders, A., 2014. The Matrix Reloaded: a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecol. Model., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.024. Kreuter, U.P., Harris, H.G., Matlock, M.D., Lacey, R.E., 2001. Change in ecosystem service values in the San Antonio area, Texas. Ecol. Econ. 39, 333–346. Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., Fohrer, N., 2012. Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Pol. 29, 521–535. Le-Maitre, D.C., Milton, S.J., Jarmain, C., Colvin, C.A., Saayman, I., Vlok, J.H.J., 2007. Landscape-scale hydrology of the Little Karoo: linking ecosystems, ecosystem services and water resources. Front. Ecol. Environ. 5, 261–270. Lette, H., de Boo, H., 2002. Economic valuation of forests and nature. A support tool for effective decision-making. Intenational Agricultural Center (IAC), Wageningen. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment), 2005. Ecosystems and Human WellBeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC. Mollah, A.R., Kundu, D.K., 2004. Site-level field appraisal for protected area comanagement: Lawachara National Park. Nature Conservation and Management (NACOM). Dhaka, pp. 58–59. Mollah, A.R., Nath, S.K., Rahman, M.A., Mannan, M.A., 2003. Secondary data collection for pilot protected areas: Lawachara National Park. Nishorgo Support Project, Bangladesh. Mukul, S.A., October 5–10, 2008. The role of traditional forest practices in enhanced conservation and improved livelihoods of indigenous communities: case study from Lawachara National Park, Bangladesh. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Forest Related Traditional Knowledge and Culture in Asia. Seoul, Korea, pp 24–28. Mukul, S.A., 2014. Biodiversity conservation and ecosystem functions of traditional agroforestry systems: case study from three tribal communities in and around Lawachara National Park. In: Chowdhury, M.S.H. (Ed.), Forest Communities in Protected Areas of Bangladesh: Policy and Community Development Perspectives. Springer, Switzerland, pp. 171–179. Mukul, S.A., Herbohn, J., Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Uddin, M.B., 2014. Comapring the effectiveness of forest law enforcement and economic incentive to prevent illegal logging in Bangladesh. Int. For. Rev. 16, 363–375. Müller, F., 2005. Indicating ecosystem and landscape organisation. Ecol. Indic. 5, 280–294. Müller, F., Burkhard, B, 2007. An ecosystem based framework to link landscape structures, functions and services. In: Mander, Ü., Wiggering, H., Helming, K. (Eds.), Multifunctional Land Use—Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services. Springer, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York, pp. 37–64. Nautiyal, S.,Kaul, A.K., 1999. Forest Biodiversity and its Conservation Practices in India. NSP (Nishorgo Support Project), 2006a. Protected Areas of Bangladesh: A visitor's guide. Nishorgo Support Project (NSP). Dhaka, 41 pp. NSP (Nishorgo Support Project), 2006b. Landuse/landcover Maps of Six Protected Areas of Nishorgo Support Project. International Resources Group, Washington, DC, USA. NSP (Nishorgo Support Project), 2007. Nishorgo Support Project. available online at 〈http://www.nishorgo.org〉. Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129. Portman, M.E., 2013. Ecosystem services in practice: challenges to real world implementation of ecosystem services across multiple landscapes—A critical review. Appl. Geogr. 45, 185–192. Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 365, 2959–2971. Quijas, S., Jackson, L.E., Maass, M., Schmid, B., Raffaelli, D., Balvanera, P., 2012. Plant diversity and generation of ecosystem services at the landscape scale: expert knowledge assessment. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 929–940. Rashid, A.Z.M.M., Craig, D., Mukul, S.A., Khan, N.A., 2013. A journey towards shared governance: status and prospects for collaborative management in the protected areas of Bangladesh. J. For. Res. 24, 599–605. Sohel, M.S.I., Mukul, S.A., Chicharo, L., 2014. A new ecohydrological approach for ecosystem service provision and sustainable management of aquatic ecosystems in Bangladesh. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.10.001. Seppelt, R., Fath, B., Burkhard, B., Fisher, J.L., Grêt-Regamey, A., Lautenbach, S., Pert, P., Hotes, S., Spangenberg, J., Verburg, P.H., van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., 2012. Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol. Indic. 21, 145–154. Swetnam, R.D., Fisher, B., Mbilinyi, B.P., Munishi, P.K.T., Willcock, S., Ricketts, T., Mwakalila, S., Balmford, A., Burgess, N.D., Marshall, A.R., Lewis, S.L., 2011. Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service modelling. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 563–574. Turner, R.K., Daily, G.C., 2008. The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environ. Res. Econ. 39, 25–35. van Jaarsveld, A.S., Biggs, R., Scholes, R., Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., Lynam, T., Musvoto, C., Fabricius, C., 2005. Measuring conditions and trends in ecosystem services at multiple scales: the Southern African Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (SAfMA) experience. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci 360, 425–441. Vigerstol, K.L., Aukema, J.E., 2011. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. J. Environ. Manag. 92, 2403–2409. Vihervaara, P., Kumpula, T., Tanskanen, A., Burkhard, B., 2010. Ecosystem services—a tool for sustainable management of human-environment systems. Case studyFinnish forest lapland. Ecol. Complex. 7, 410–420. WRI (World Resources Institute), 2001. People and Ecosystems: The Fraying Web of Life. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Please cite this article as: Sohel, M.S.I., et al., Landscape's capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: A mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.015i