GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-09966-w (0123456789().,-volV)
(0123456789().,-volV)

Factors determining conversion of agricultural land use

in Bangladesh: farmers’ perceptions and perspectives
of climate change
Md. Monirul Islam . Arifa Jannat . Aurup Ratan Dhar . Tofael Ahamed

Published online: 7 January 2019

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Abstract The study was accomplished to identify to respondents’ cultivable land, assets, agricultural
the factors determining land conversion in Bangla- enterprises and basic livelihood necessities. From the
desh and evaluate farmers’ perception about the result of Logit model it was found that farming
changing land use decision. Data were collected from experience, disaster loss, farmer’s educational level,
Mymensingh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts of annual income, access to credit, farmer’s age and
Bangladesh. A total of 300 sample farmers were saline water intrusion were the significant determi-
interviewed following purposive and random sam- nants of changing land use decision in the study
pling technique. For analyzing data, a combination of areas. Farmers’ livelihood assets namely, human,
descriptive, mathematical and statistical techniques social, financial, natural and physical capitals were
were used. Descriptive statistics showed that average improved to a noticeable extent after their land
household and farm size of the farmers were 5.0 and shifting decision. The study recommended that train-
0.47 hectare, respectively. Percentage perception ing provision, motivational programmes and
index demonstrated that most of the respondents extension contact should be properly implemented
experienced climatic changes having negative by the government as well as non-government
impacts on agricultural activities. Agreement index organizations to aware the farmers about pros and
depicted that natural calamities caused stern damage cons of land conversion and to choose the best land
use decision for livelihood improvement.
Md. M. Islam (&)
Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Keywords Agricultural land conversion ·
University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8572, Japan Climate change · Determinants · Land use ·
e-mail: [email protected]
Livelihood perception · Logit model
Md. M. Islam · A. R. Dhar
Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh
Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh Introduction
A. Jannat
Institute of Agribusiness and Development Studies, Land use decisions by the smallholders’ in Bangla-
Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, desh have been changing over the years. At present,
Bangladesh the scale and rate of change of land use is greater than
any other time in history. Over the last 30–40 years,
T. Ahamed
Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of availability of agricultural land in Bangladesh has
Tsukuba, Tsukuba 305-8572, Japan been declining at the rate of 1% per year. Agriculture

123
344 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

continues to be a strategic sector in the development population increase, economic development and land
of most low-income nations like Bangladesh where use pattern changes have generated sufficient
smallholder farming is the dominant livelihood research interest at different times (Agarwal et al.
activity (SFB 2015). In Bangladesh, smallholder 2001) but little has been done in predicting long term
farming accounts for 96% of its total operational negative effect in developing nations (Quasem 2011).
holdings with a share of 69% of total cultivated area To achieve the food self-sufficiency, as small
(Thapa and Gaiha 2011). Smallholder farming and farmers tend to adopt various kinds of land use
appropriate land use decision are essentially meeting decision such as crop field to fisheries and mango
the nutritional requirements of the country and orchard in a short run, but its negative effect remains
ensuring food security in the coming decades (Dorosh behind of curtain. Moreover, due to the involvement
et al. 2002). Although agriculture in Bangladesh has of producing cash crop, deliberate use of ground
contributed to increase food self-sufficiency over the water, overdoses fertilizers and pesticides, cutting
last 30 years, the participation in the commercializa- down the trees, dependency of single crop leads the
tion process has been a difficult task for the land in a vulnerable situation as well as affect their
smallholder farmers because of inapt land use livelihood directly and indirectly. It is seen that most
decision, inappropriate policies, and insufficient of the time an inappropriate land use decision by the
access to technology, institutional obstacles, weak small farmers has led serious problems. The impor-
infrastructure and unfortunate links to markets tance of land use planning to ensure rational use of
(Sharma et al. 2012). In addition, environmental land is very much important to ensure food security
degradation increases the unpredictability of a wide and sustainable intensification of land uses in
range of naturally occurring biotic and abiotic Bangladesh. As a result, there is greater need for
constraints, including poor soils, water scarcity, crop conducting research on land use issues in particular to
pests/diseases/weeds and unsuitable temperatures, are know changing land use decision and factors influ-
well-known to reduce the productivity of food crops, encing that conversion of land use in rural
leading to low efficiencies of input use, suppressed Bangladesh.
crop output, and ultimately reduced food security The linkage among agricultural policy, land use
(Reynolds et al. 2015). This unpredictability pushes decisions and the climate change has been illustrated
Bangladesh’s smallholder farmers away from agri- in Fig. 1. Development of best land use decisions are
cultural production, which threatens the food security influenced by a number of internal and external
of the country (Cairns 2015). factors. Some important external factors including
With high pressure on its natural resource base, demand for food, personnel preferences, rules and
Bangladesh is in threat of declining agro lands with regulations of trade, technology and infrastructure
devastating consequences on country’s ability to advancement and ownership of land (WB 2006; FAO
sustainably achieve and maintain self-sufficiency in 2017). Some agricultural policies like crop insurance,
food and agro-based livelihoods (Zubair 2006; SRDI subsidy agricultural extension and education system,
2013). Besides, shifting rate of agricultural land to proper dissemination in the field, classification of
non-agricultural uses alarms to crop production and land influences the land use decision (APO 2003;
food security in Bangladesh (PC 2009). In this Edwards 2015; Balcita 2015). In addition, soil type,
connection, SRDI (2010) estimated approximately topography, value of land, land market dynamics
0.13% land was transferred from agro to non-agro influences directly to select the best and appropriate
sector per year from 1963 to 1983 (Rahman and land use planning (Hubacek and Vazquez 2002;
Hasan 2003) while Planning Commission (PC 2009) Kirkby et al. 2002; Coughlan et al. 2017). There are
demanded that at least one quarter of country’s some important outcomes from changing climatic
agricultural land has already been lost since inde- conditions such as soil fertility, pest attack, flash
pendence. Researches also show that shifting rate of flood, drought, salinity, changing ecosystem and
agricultural lands towards non-agricultural purposes biodiversity which are affected due to inappropriate
may be faster in twenty-first century because of rapid land attributes (Archaux and Wolters 2006; NSW
economic growth and infrastructural development Government 2011). Market responses including price
(Hasan et al. 2013). Relationships between of the necessary commodity, input prices,

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 345

External Factors Agricultural Policy Land Attributes

Food demand, Individual Crop insurance, Subsidy, Soil type, Topography, Climate,
preferences, Trade laws, Extension and dissemination, Drainage system,
Technology, Infrastructure, Institutional development, Land market and value, Water
Economic activities Land classification, Land bodies.
zoning

Best Land Use Decisions

External Margin Intensive Margin

Broad land-use Economically viable crop
choice
Crop choices (e.g. Environment friendly
cereal, non-cereal crop High market potentiality
Technological Human settlement
innovation

Climatic Outcome
Soil fertility, Pest attack,
Market Responses
Price, Organizational Drought, Rainfall, Crop
structure, duration, Temperature,
Influence of middlemen, Flood, Salinity,
Transportation, Market access, Soil intrusion, Biodiversity
Politics

Fig. 1 Linkage among agricultural policy, land use decisions and the climate change. Source: Zube (1987), Giampietro and Pimentel
(1993), INTOSAI WGEA (2013) and OECD (2017)

organizational structure, political unrest, influence of The more the population, the higher is the intensity of
middlemen in the market also disrupts the best land land use (Giampietro and Pimentel 1993). There are
use decisions system. Market responses also got some other reasons too in making decisions of new
feedback from inappropriate land use decisions (FAO uses of land, for instance, changes in the physical
2011; Basnett et al. 2014). attributes of land and environment, namely climatic
However, reliable comparable data at micro level change, loss of fertility, resource depletion, soil
are hardly available. There are several reasons for intrusion due to salinity, drought and flood ability
such changes in agricultural land use. The most (INTOSAI WGEA 2013; OECD 2017). On the other
important reason is increasing population and conse- hand, human factors, like perception and behavioral
quent reduction in the per capita availability of land.

123
346 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

aspects are important agents for land use change and found that over the last 40 years there was a
(Zube 1987) (Fig. 1). significant decline in the area under cultivable wastes
The overall objective of the study is to identify the and barren and uncultivable wastes while there was a
factors affecting land use decision changes in some sharp increase in the land put to non-agricultural uses.
selected areas of Bangladesh. The specific objectives Najafi (2003) studied the current land utilization
are: (1) to identify and analyze farmers’ perception, systems and their contribution to agricultural pro-
climate change impact and underlying factors influ- ductivity in Asia and found that the crop area
encing the changing land use decisions; and (2) to harvested and land productivity expected to grow
develop some policy guidelines for improving farm- slowly mainly due to land degradation, chemical
ers’ living standards through adopting the best land degradation (e.g., loss of nutrients) which led to
use decision. reduction in crop yields and factor productivity,
conversion of land to lower value uses and temporary
or permanent abandonment of plots.
Research gap and justification of the study With the growing population and their increasing
needs in various sectors, land use pattern undergoes a
In rural Bangladesh, there are wide knowledge gaps qualitative change in which the areas under the net
regarding changing land use decisions by the small- cropped land, and forest land gradually shrinks. A
holders’ and its impact on farmers’ livelihood large part of the forestland is now under different
diversification. Although several authors’ have types of non-forest land use, for example, as shifting
worked on models of land use and land use change, agriculture, illegal occupation for homestead, and
especially in the form of change into different crops shrimp culture. A few research identified the socioe-
only a few have considered major competing land conomic and environmental factors that influenced
uses. these conversions. Most importantly, majority of
Land, the mother of resources (Mia and Islam these studies were not in the context of Bangladesh.
2005), is being considered as a prerequisite for all Considering this research gap, the study is taken
development purposes especially for sustainable under consideration. The study proposed some insight
development. Land, therefore, refers to the basic on farmers’ perceptions on experiencing climate
natural resource that provides habitat and nourish- change parameters on land use decisions in Bangla-
ment for living organisms or the means for livelihood desh. Moreover, the socioeconomic and climatic
with potential revenue if properly utilized (Iftekhar factors having significant influences on farmers’
2006). Land use research is devoted to analyze shifting land use decision were identified. Finally,
relationship among land use pattern, socioeconomic the impact of production practices and changing land
as well as biophysical variables (Lesschen et al. use decision on farmers’ livelihood in Bangladesh
2005) that act jointly as driving forces and can be were portrayed in this study. The study will help the
understood through monitoring and analyzing the policymakers to formulate policy guidelines for
trends regularly (NASA 2006). As a result, research- improving the living standards of the farmers through
ers have used various methods based on existing data, adopting the best land use decision in the context of
techniques and facilities (Lambin et al. 2003) to Bangladesh.
explore the various land use patterns and correspond-
ing changes over time and place. Changes in the
cover, use and management of the land have occurred Materials and methods
throughout the history in most of the parts of the
world as population has changed and human civi- Study areas, sample size and data collection
lizations have risen and fallen (Dale et al. 2000).
Land use change is generally shown in terms of a The study was conducted at three agro-ecological
change in area for a particular land use or cover class zones of Bangladesh where land use decision had
over a specific period of time (Farrow and Wino- changed in a period of time. Different villages of
grad2001). Ramasamy et al. (2005) studied the three administrative units (locally called upazilas)
dynamics of land use pattern in Tamil Nadu, India from Mymensingh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 347

were selected purposively as the study areas based on represent the farmers that are affected by unfavorable
farmers’ changing trend of agricultural enterprise environmental conditions like climate uncertainty,
selection (Table 1). The basic layer maps that drought, salinity and tropical cyclones to different
included administrative levels and major hydrological degrees.
rivers were developed from Bangladesh Country In this survey the unit of analysis was the
Almanac (BCA) datasets using ArcGIS 10.3®. The household and the household head was the key
layers were projected in the WGS1984 coordinate informant. A complete list of households attached
(Fig. 2). The selected districts are marked for with changing land use decision in the selected
Mymensingh, Rajshahi and Khulna. In Mymensingh villages was first collected from the sub-district office
district, farmers would like to produce fish after of Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE). In
converting their rice field into fish pond. In each village, 15% of the household heads were
Mymensingh district, there was a favorable environ- interviewed, which provided a sample size of 300
ment for inland aquaculture production, especially households (Table 1) where it has been argued that
pangas fish. Expansion of pangas production required 5% of the population is adequate for a cross-sectional
conversion of land related to crop fields, wetlands and household survey (Bartlett et al. 2001). To ensure
seasonal water bodies to fish ponds and this scenario randomness in the sampling, a computer-generated
was very common to the majority of the farmers in random number table was applied to the list to select
the selected region (Akteruzzaman 2005). In Rajshahi the 300 households. In the case of a non-response, the
and Khulna districts, farmers shifted from rice interviewers proceeded to the next household until
cultivation to mango orchard and shrimp production, the targeted number of respondents for a particular
respectively. Rajshahi district was considered for this village was reached.
study due to remarkable changing state of converting Before primary data collection commenced, a
rice field into mango orchard for the consequences of structured survey questionnaire was pre-tested with
climatic variations like extent of drought and water 30 respondents from three districts to ensure the
scarcity during plantation. Farmers of Khulna district adequacy of the information obtained and to avoid
were selected because in this coastal saline area of any ambiguity in the questions. Data were collected
Bangladesh, frequent shortages of food due to using the final questionnaire through face-to-face
uncertainty of rainfall and lack of fresh irrigation interviews between February and March 2018. In
water were observed. There was an opportunity to addition to check the reliability and validity of the
study the impacts associated with climate change and data, three focus group discussions (FGDs) and eight
vulnerability on crop and livestock. Evidently, the key informant interviews (KIIs) were also done with
farmers who shifted from rice production to shrimp the selected respondents. The questionnaire sought
farming were available in this area (Sarker et al. information to measure the impact of production
2014; Anisuzzaman et al. 2015). These three districts practices on farmers’ asset possession, activities and
had been recognized to show more changing situation strategies, quantify farmers’ perceptions on experi-
than other districts of Bangladesh which motivated encing climate change impact on some selected
the authors to take these study areas into consider- opinions (Ndamani and Watanabe 2015; Callo-Con-
ations to get some meaningful results for future cha 2018; Dhar et al. 2018a). Secondary data sources
generations. In addition, the areas were selected to

Table 1 Study areas and sample size

Districts Upazilas Villages Sample size

Mymensingh Mymensingh Sadar Kanhor, Bailer, Kanthal 100

Rajshahi Paba Hujuri Para, Noahata, Damkur 100
Khulna Dacope Batbunia, Laudob, Bajua 100
Total sample 300

123
348 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

Fig. 2 Map of the study areas. Source: Authors’ development using ArcGis 10.3® software

like reports, publications, and handouts relevant with Analytical techniques

this study were also checked.
For analyzing the data, a combination of descriptive
statistics (sum, averages, percentages, livelihood

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 349

component framework and recommendation matrix), of the index included 10 statements on the basis of
mathematical techniques (percentage perception index questionnaire pre-testing and secondary literature
and agreement index) and statistical techniques (lo- (Nyuor et al. 2016; Alam et al. 2017; Zoundji et al.
gistic regression model, i.e., Logit model) were used to 2017). The authors found plenty of statements in this
achieve the objectives and to get the meaningful result. case also, but kept the first ten statements for each
To input the primary data, Microsoft Office Excel division based the on highest frequencies. Each
2007® was used, and IBM SPSS Statistics V22.0® and division of the index included 10 statements. Farm-
STATA 12® were used to analyze the primary data. ers’ agreement or disagreement with the statements
Moreover, to develop the map of the study area, was quantified with the following formula:
ArcGIS 10.3® software was used.

Livelihood component framework where ϩ is the farmers agreed or disagreed with the
statements; and ω is the weighted score of the
Livelihood component framework was constructed to statements.
measure the impact of production practices on
farmers’ asset possession, activities and strategies, Logit model
wellbeing, and external policies and institutions
(Ashley and Hussein 2000). In order to identify the factors influencing changing
land use decision by the farmers, logistic regression
Percentage perception index model (i.e., Logit model) was used (Gujarati 2003).
The model was constructed individually for each
To quantify farmers’ perceptions on experiencing study area to get specific and meaningful estimates.
climate change, percentage perception index was In the Logit models, the dependent variable was fixed
used (Dhar and Uddin 2017). Each farmer of the for all of the study areas which was conversion and
research areas was asked to indicate his/her option non-conversion of land. The independent variables
regarding each level of change on ten (10) selected included in the analysis were not the same in all the
opinions. During the pre-testing of questionnaire, models as major determining factors varied in each
farmers identified a large number of statements but study area based on farmers’ socioeconomic charac-
for the simplicity of calculation, the first ten of them teristics, geographical state and agricultural systems
were selected on the basis of highest frequencies. (Daskalakis et al. 2002). The major determining
Farmers had option to indicate each statement as factors in each study area were identified through
‘increase’, ‘decrease’ and ‘no change’. To see the personal interviews, FGDs and KIIs.
percentage of each statement, the following simple In Mymensingh district, majority of the farmers had
percentage formula was used: extensive farming experience. Most of the farmers
surveyed in this district were engaged in different
Percentage perception index
income generating activities beside agriculture, which
¼ ½No: of respondents’ opinion helped them to earn a noticeable amount of annual
about statements ðincrease, decrease or constantÞ income. But the farmers’ were also vulnerable to
100  Total no: of respondents natural disasters like flood, and river erosion which
motivated them to alter the land use. For these reasons,
farming experience, annual income, occupation and
Agreement index disaster loss were included in the Logit model for
Mymensingh district. We observed that farmers with
Agreement index was used to quantify farmers’ minimum knowledge of education in Rajshahi district
perceptions about the impacts of natural calamities on had greater tendency of shifting land use. Enhanced
their day-to-day life (adopted from Barnhart et al. income from shifting land use decision was also an
2007). The index was composed of two divisions: (1) important fact. Farmers in this region had more flexible
positive impacts of natural calamities; and (2) opportunities to get credit support from local non-
negative impacts of natural calamities. Each division government organizations. Well-developed transport

123
350 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

and telecommunication system greatly influenced the conversion and Pi equals to 0 indicates non-conver-
farmers to get access to the nearest agricultural market. sion. In case of dependent variable: Qi is the
Considering these issues, farmer’s educational level, conversion and non-conversion of land. Independent
annual income, market access and access to credit were variables: M1 is the farm size (ha); M2 is the farmer’s
considered as major factors of Logit model in Rajshahi educational level (years of schooling); M3 is the
district. In case of farmers in Khulna district, majority annual income (Tk.); M4 is the market access (Pi
of them were of physically active age than the farmers equals to 1 indicates having access to market and Pi
of other study areas and almost all of them had training equals to 0 indicates having no access to market); M5
on different agricultural issues. In this region, the most is the access to credit (Pi equals to 1 indicates having
important problem of crop farming was the intrusion of access to credit and Pi equals to 0 indicates having no
excess saline water during the time of high tide. access to credit); α0 is the intercept; α1 to α5 are the
Moreover, the saline water remained logged during the regression coefficients of the dependent variable; and
period of low tide which hampered the production of ηi is the error term.
crops. Hence, the farmers of these districts followed The following Logit model was used to identify
the trend of changing land use decision. That’s why, the determinants of changing land use decisions in
farmer’s age, training provision, saline water intrusion Khulna district:
and water logging were selected as major independent
Ti ¼ ln½Pi  ð1  Pi Þ
variables in Khulna district. As farm size of the farmers
in the study areas was nearly similar, it was considered ¼ l0 þ l1 N1 þ l2 N2 þ l3 N3 þ l4 N4 þ l5 N5 þ ti
as the common factor for all three Logit models.
The following Logit model was used to identify where Pi is the probability of land conversion and
the determinants of changing land use decisions in non-conversion of land, Pi equals to 1 indicates
Mymensingh district: conversion and Pi equals to 0 indicates non-conver-
sion. In case of dependent variable: Ti is the
Gi ¼ ln½Pi  ð1  Pi Þ conversion and non-conversion of land. Independent
¼ b0 þ b1 X1 þ b2 X2 þ b3 X3 þ b4 X4 þ b5 X5 þ ei variables: N1 is the farm size (ha); N2 is the farmer’s
age (years); N3 is the training provision (days); N4 is
where Pi is the probability of land conversion and the saline water intrusion (Pi equals to 1 indicates
non-conversion of land, Pi equals to 1 indicates intrusion of saline water and Pi equals to 0 indicates
conversion and Pi equals to 0 indicates non-conver- no intrusion of saline water); N5 is the water logging
sion. In case of dependent variable: Gi is the (Pi equals to 1 indicates water logging condition and
conversion and non-conversion of land. Independent Pi equals to 0 indicates no water logging condition);
variables: X1 is the farm size (ha); X2 is the farming μ0 is the intercept; μ1 to μ5 are the regression
experience (years of farming); X3 is the annual coefficients of the dependent variable; and υi is the
income (Tk.); X4 is the occupation (Pi equals to 1 error term.
indicates only agriculture and Pi equals to 0 indicates
agriculture and others); X5 is the disaster loss (Tk.); Assessment of farmers’ livelihood
β0 is the intercept; β1 to β5 are the regression
coefficients of the dependent variable; and εi is the To analyze the livelihood outcome of the farmers
error term. after changing land use decision, sustainable liveli-
The following Logit model was used to identify hood framework was approached (DFID 1999). The
the determinants of changing land use decisions in approach identified and measured five types of
Rajshahi district: livelihood assets or capitals which were: human
capital, social capital, financial capital, natural capital
Qi ¼ ln½Pi  ð1  Pi Þ
and physical capital.
¼ a0 þ a1 M1 þ a2 M2 þ a3 M3 þ a4 M4 þ a5 M5 þ gi

where Pi is the probability of land conversion and

non-conversion of land, Pi equals to 1 indicates

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 351

Recommendation matrix Average land holding of farmers in Mymensingh,

Rajshahi and Khulna districts was 0.52, 0.41 and
Suggestions and policy recommendations were pre- 0.48 ha, respectively (Table 2). Most of the farmers in
sented by the researchers in the form of the research areas were illiterate (49.7%); and 28.7%
recommendation matrix (Dhar et al. 2018b) for and 11.3% could put sign only and attained secondary
improving farmers’ living standards through adopting level of education, respectively. Two types of farmers
the best land use decision. were found in the research areas, the first one was
subsistent farmers who produced agricultural prod-
ucts only for own consumption; and another was
Results and discussion commercial farmers who produced agricultural prod-
ucts mainly to sell in the market. Overall, 29.7%
Socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents farmers were subsistent and 70.3% were commercial
farmers in the study areas.
This section makes available information on farmers’
basic socioeconomic characteristics. It is seen that Impact of production practices on farmers’
65.0%, 78.0% and 69.0% male respondents were livelihood
surveyed during data collection where the number of
female respondents was 35.0%, 22.0% and 31.0% in Farmers’ engagement with different production prac-
Mymensingh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts, respec- tices had a great impact on their livelihood which was
tively (Table 2). On an average, 70.7% male and represented by livelihood component framework
29.3% female respondents were included in the study. (Table 3). The positive and negative impacts of the
Average age of the farmers was found as 37 years in farming practices were overviewed on the basis of
the study areas. Average household size in Mymen- farmers’ asset possession, activities and strategies,
singh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts was 5, 6 and 4, wellbeing, and external policies and institutions. In
respectively which was higher than the national terms of farmers’ asset possession, it is observed that
average of 4.5 (HIES 2010) in first two areas. The land use efficiency was increased in case of 32.0%
dependency ratios were 1.7, 3.0 and 1.3 in Mymen- farmers, and income for purchasing assets and
singh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts, respectively. agricultural inputs was increased for 39.5% farmers.
Financial solvency of the farmers also increased. On

Table 2 Socioeconomic features of the respondents. Source: Field survey, 2018

Particulars Mymensingh Rajshahi Khulna Overall

Sex (% of farmers)
Male 65.0 78.0 69.0 70.7
Female 35.0 22.0 31.0 29.3
Age (years) 41.0 34.0 36.0 37
Household size (no.) 5.0 6.0 4.0 5.0
Dependency ratio 1.7 3.0 1.3 2.0
Average land holding (ha) 0.52 0.41 0.48 0.47
Farmers’ educational level (% of farmers)
Illiterate 55.0 45.0 49.0 49.7
Sign only 29.0 32.0 25.0 28.7
Primary 9.0 11.0 14.0 11.3
Farming types (% of farmers)
Subsistence 24.0 36.0 29.0 29.7
Commercial 76.0 64.0 71.0 70.3

123
352 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

Table 3 Livelihood component framework. Source: Field survey, 2018

Impacts on Outcomes
Positive effects % of Negative effects % of
farmers farmers

Impact of production practices on farmers’ asset possession

Human capital Income used for educational 36.0 – –
purposes
Physical assets Income used to buy food, modern 39.5 – –
agricultural equipments and
housing construction
Financial assets Increased savings and cash at hand, 43.0 – –
reduced borrowing tendency of
capital
Natural capital Increased land use efficiency 32.0 Reduced environmental quality, increased ecological 60.3
imbalance due to over extraction of underground
water, more use of chemical fertilizer and pesticides,
etc.
Social capital Reduced dowry system, increased 34.0 Conflicts within community 47.0
training facilities
Impact of production practices on farmers’ activities and strategies
Farming, Increased crop productivity and 48.7 Reduced involvement in other income generating 33.0
schooling and cropping intensity activities
other activities Increased child enrollment 45.3
Work can be shared within 27.5
household
Further reducing tradeoff with other 21.0
works
Strategies for Contributes to diversification 32.0 – –
selecting Reduce risk and uncertainty 27.3
activities:
Increased additional income 37.5
Diversify
Minimize risk
Maintain
liquidity
Impact of production practices on farmers’ well being
Cash Earnings can be significant 45.0 Limited and unpredictable 63.9
Food security Helps to ensure households’ food 62.5 – –
security
Sustainability of Contributes to livelihood 54.1 Some earn distrust 21.4
livelihood sustainability
Empowerment Increased empowerment, especially 35.0 Lack of capacity building of groups 32.0
women
Reduced Cannot rely on 30.5 – –
vulnerability unpredictable earnings
Impact of production practices on farmers’ external policies and institutions
Market access Gain access to market 69.2 – –
Control access of members 52.5

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 353

the other hand, 60.3% farmers experienced increasing the past 20 years to construct percentage perception
ecological imbalance and decreasing environmental index. There were 10 (ten) issues identified by the
condition. researcher in this regard and the respondents could
It is seen that 48.7% farmers stated about increased respond whether they had experienced any increase,
crop productivity as well as cropping intensity in the decrease or constant change in the occurrence of the
study areas which allowed them to grow more crops issues. Most of the farmers in Mymensingh district
in a year. Additional income from farming activities faced cyclones, unpredictable rainfall and tempera-
had been increased according to 37.5% farmers. ture (reported by 67.0%, 65.0% and 62.0%,
Risks and uncertainties in agricultural were decreased respectively) (Table 4). In Rajshahi district, farmers
accordingly. However, 33.0% farmers opined that mainly experienced long summer season, drought and
their involvement with other income generating cyclones (according to 63.0%, 60.0% and 56.0%
activities was decreased to some extent. Most of the farmers, respectively). On the other hand, 66.0%,
farmers’ food security condition was improved which 61.0% and 59.0% farmers in Khulna district experi-
helped to enhance sustainable livelihood provision. enced that salinity level, flood occurrence and
Limited and unpredictable cash earnings due to changes of monsoon season, respectively had been
natural calamities were experienced by 63.9% farm- increased within the last 20 years. Across all issues,
ers. Also, market access and control of the people majority of the respondents experienced climatic
was increased in the study areas (Table 3). The shifts which are likely to have a negative impact on
findings were quite similar with Rietveld (2009) agricultural activity. Elum et al. (2017) supported the
where the author showed that farmers in the Koutiala findings where the authors observed that majority of
zone of Southern Mali were facing difficulties in the farmers had experienced higher temperatures,
livelihood practices like loss of income from cotton drought and lower crop yield due to changed weather
production and rising costs of cattle management. conditions over time in South Africa.

Farmers’ perceptions on experiencing climate Farmers’ perceptions about the impact of climate
change parameters on land use decisions change on land use decisions

The respondents of each study area were asked to Farmers’ perceptions about the impact of natural
give their opinion on whether or not they had calamities on their day-to-day life were evaluated
experienced changes to the regional climate within using agreement index. Farmers’ observations were

Table 4 Percentage perception index of climate change parameters on land use decisions. Source: Authors’ estimation, 2018
Climate change parameters Respondents’ perception (% of respondents)
Mymensingh Rajshahi Khulna
Increased Decreased No Increased Decreased No Increased Decreased No
change change change

Temperature 62.0 16.0 22.0 54.0 38.0 8.0 54.0 24.0 22.0
Rainfall 41.0 47.0 12.0 41.0 45.0 14.0 48.0 15.0 37.0
Occurrence of drought 53.0 34.0 13.0 60.0 24.0 16.0 39.0 21.0 40.0
Occurrence of flood 56.0 26.0 18.0 37.0 39.0 24.0 61.0 24.0 15.0
Occurrence of cyclones 67.0 23.0 10.0 56.0 12.0 32.0 37.0 34.0 29.0
Salinity level 36.0 38.0 26.0 49.0 14.0 37.0 66.0 18.0 36.0
Short winter season 29.0 37.0 34.0 50.0 6.0 44.0 47.0 12.0 41.0
Long summer season 54.0 10.0 36.0 63.0 14.0 23.0 58.0 10.0 32.0
Unpredictable rainfall 65.0 14.0 21.0 52.0 17.0 31.0 51.0 15.0 34.0
Changes of monsoon 59.0 20.0 21.0 55.0 13.0 32.0 59.0 18.0 23.0
season

123
354 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

recorded on 10 positive and 10 negative statements Mymensingh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts, 43.9%,
about the impacts of natural calamities, and their 45.4% and 47.0% farmers, respectively were agreed
depth of agreements on the selected statements were with the statements about negative impacts of natural
calculated consequently. In Mymensingh, Rajshahi calamities like reduced farm production, damaged
and Khulna districts, 56.5%, 55.1% and 56.6% farm infrastructure, damaged communication system,
farmers, respectively agreed with the statements hampered biodiversity and increased cost of produc-
about positive impacts of natural calamities like tion while 56.1%, 54.6% and 53.0% farmers,
increased water supply, improved soil fertility, respectively were disagreed with the statements.
enlarged water living space, increased soil moisture The result is partially supported by Khan and Nahar
and reduced air pollution whereas 43.5%, 44.9% and (2014) where the authors showed that natural calami-
43.4% farmers, respectively were disagreed with the ties had destructive impacts on human lives, health,
statements (Table 5). On the other hand, in education and property damages in Bangladesh.

Table 5 Agreement index regarding the impacts of climate change on land use decisions. Source: Authors’ estimation, 2018
Statements Farmers’ agreement Weights
Mymensingh Rajshahi Khulna
Agreed Disagreed Agreed Disagreed Agreed Disagreed

Positive impacts
Increased water supply 59/100 41/100 54/100 46/100 54/100 46/100 1/10
Improved soil fertility 34/100 66/100 30/100 70/100 34/100 66/100 1/10
Enlarged water living space 61/100 39/100 67/100 33/100 67/100 33/100 1/10
Increased soil moisture 55/100 45/100 58/100 42/100 55/100 45/100 1/10
Reduced air pollution 27/100 73/100 22/100 78/100 22/100 78/100 1/10
Better nutrient management 70/100 30/100 65/100 65/100 70/100 30/100 1/10
Recharged groundwater reserve 75/100 25/100 77/100 23/100 77/100 23/100 1/10
Improved pest management 63/100 37/100 57/100 43/100 63/100 37/100 1/10
Facilitation of government support 79/100 21/100 82/100 18/100 82/100 18/100 1/10
Development of community support 42/100 58/100 39/100 61/100 42/100 58/100 1/10
Index score 0.565 0.435 0.551 0.449 0.566 0.434 –
Depth of agreement (%) 56.5 43.5 55.1 44.9 56.6 43.4 –
Negative impacts
Reduced farm production 67/100 33/100 61/100 39/100 61/100 39/100 1/10
Damaged farm infrastructure 60/100 40/100 63/100 37/100 63/100 37/100 1/10
Disrupt communication system 54/100 46/100 59/100 41/100 54/100 46/100 1/10
Disturbed biodiversity 38/100 62/100 40/100 60/100 49/100 51/100 1/10
Increased cost of production 40/100 60/100 37/100 63/100 41/100 59/100 1/10
Higher market prices of inputs 52/100 48/100 55/100 45/100 55/100 45/100 1/10
Enhanced soil erosion 56/100 44/100 63/100 37/100 60/100 40/100 1/10
Reduced rainfall 29/100 71/100 31/100 69/100 38/100 62/100 1/10
Siltation and sedimentation 23/100 77/100 20/100 80/100 19/100 81/100 1/10
Deformed land topography 20/100 80/100 25/100 75/100 30/100 70/100 1/10
Index score 0.439 0.561 0.454 0.546 0.470 0.530 –
Depth of agreement (%) 43.9 56.1 45.4 54.6 47.0 53.0 –

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 355

Determinants of land conversion decision Impact of changing land use decision on farmers’
by the farmers livelihood

A Logit model had been used separately for Mymen- Farmers’ land shifting had a great impact on
sigh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts to bring about the sustaining their livelihood capitals (i.e., human,
factors influencing land conversion decision by the social, financial. natural and physical capitals) which
farmers in the study areas. Five independent variables is represented in Fig. 3. It was observed that 51.0% of
were identified as major determinants of changing the farmers stated that quality of the human capital
land use decision for each study area in this study, of components had increased over the time through
which two, three and two independent variables gaining education and knowledge, improving health
included in the models for Mymensigh, Rajshahi and condition, having more access to information, better
Khulna districts, respectively were found significant training and development of skill in all the selected
in explaining the variation in changing land use areas. In some cases, quality of human capital was
decision by the farmers (Tables 6, 7, 8). decreased which was mainly due to lower productiv-
The coefficient estimates of Logit model revealed ity, outbreak of diseases, and natural disasters. Penda
that farming experience and amount of disaster loss (2012) supported the result stating that the develop-
had positive significant impact on land conversion ment of agricultural sector contributed in human
decision in Mymensingh district; farmers’ annual capital development in Nigeria.
income had positive, and farmer’s educational level In terms of social capital, it was found that more
and access to credit had negative significant impact organizations are now formally or informally work-
on land conversion decision in Rajshahi district; and ing than before in the study areas to build awareness
farmer’s age and saline water intrusion had positive about the best land use decision, cooperation between
significant impact on land conversion decision in people, coping distress and other awareness build-up
Khulna district (Tables 6, 7, 8). The results are quite processes.
similar with Allahyari et al. (2013) where the authors Farmers’ involvements in different social groups
showed that economic factors had the greatest impact and their managerial capacity had improved in
on agricultural land use changes in Guilan province, general (according to 36.0% farmers). A few per-
Iran followed by social, management and policy centages of farmers somehow took away themselves
making related, personal and technical factors. from different social groups because of their self-
Anisuzzaman et al. (2015) also identified five signif- dependency and therefore, a decrease is seen in the
icant variables (namely, occupation, land holding, involvement in social groups. Most of the farmers
access to credit, intrusion of saline water and water (48.0%) reported that their community and political
logging) of shifting from rice cultivation to shrimp involvement, self-managerial capability and social
culture in Khulna district, Bangladesh. access remained constant whereas the rate of increase

Table 6 Estimates of Logit model for Mymensingh district. Source: Authors’ estimation, 2018
Variables Coefficient Standard error z P[|z| 95% confidence interval

Constant −0.272 1.205 −0.230 0.821 −2.634 2.089

Farm size (X1) −0.015 0.016 −0.920 0.359 −0.047 0.017
Farming experience (X2) 0.330* 0.171 1.930 0.053 −0.005 0.665
Annual income (X3) 0.701 0.655 1.070 0.284 −0.582 1.985
Occupation (X4) 0.826 0.623 1.330 0.185 −0.395 2.047
Disaster loss (X5) 0.003** 0.001 2.090 0.037 −0.005 0.000
Estimated model Gi =−0.272−0.015X1 +0.330X2 +0.701X3 +0.826X4 +0.003X5
** and * indicate significant at 5% and 10% probability level, respectively

123
356 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

Table 7 Estimates of Logit model for Rajshahi district. Source: Authors’ estimation, 2018
Variables Coefficient Standard error z P[|z| 95% confidence interval

Constant 0.998 0.903 1.110 0.269 −0.771 2.767

Farm size (M1) 0.000 0.000 0.470 0.639 0.000 0.000
Farmer’s educational level (M2) −0.003* 0.001 −1.920 0.055 −0.005 0.000
Annual income (M3) 0.005** 0.002 2.330 0.020 0.001 0.009
Market access (M4) 0.000 0.002 0.030 0.975 −0.004 0.004
Access to credit (M5) −0.003** 0.001 −2.440 0.015 −0.006 −0.001
Estimated model Qi =0.998+0.000M1 −0.003M2 +0.005M3 +0.000M4 −0.003M5
** and * indicate significant at 5% and 10% probability level, respectively

Table 8 Estimates of Logit model for Khulna district. Source: Authors’ estimation, 2018
Variables Coefficient Standard error z P[|z| 95% confidence interval

Constant −0.013 0.017 −0.810 0.418 −0.046 0.019

Farm size (N1) 0.119 0.087 1.370 0.170 −0.051 0.288
Farmer’s age (N2) 0.321* 0.176 1.820 0.069 −0.025 0.666
Training provision (N3) −0.590 0.634 −0.930 0.352 −0.653 1.833
Saline water intrusion (N4) 0.003** 0.001 2.190 0.029 −0.005 0.000
Water logging (N5) 0.721 1.347 0.540 0.592 −3.361 1.919
Estimated model Ti =−0.013+0.119N1 +0.321N2 −0.590N3 +0.003N4 +0.721N5
** and * indicate significant at 5% and 10% probability level, respectively

Fig. 3 Livelihood capital Human capital (health,

scenario after farmers’ land education, training,
shifting. Source: Field access to information)
survey, 2018 60
50
40 Social capital Increase
30 (community
Physical capital
20 involvement, political
(household asset Decrease
involvement, self
possesion) 10 managerial capability,
0 social access)
Constant

Natural capital Financial capital (Cash

(cultivable land, open in hand, savings,
water resources, remittances, donation
forestry) & aid)

in these components was not in a satisfactory level Figure 3 represents the changing trend of financial
(Fig. 3). In this regard, Gómez-Limón et al. (2012) capital of the farmers. Their cash in hand, savings and
stated that socioeconomic factors affected the forma- liquid assets had been increased considerably over the
tion of social capital among the farmers in Spain. years (stated by 44.0% farmers). Farmers’ income

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 357

had been increased through changed enterprise pro- agricultural productivity (according to 53.7% and
duction, and they were able to have more cash 54.0% farmers, respectively). Urban development
savings and liquid assets. According to 35.0% reduced the critical mass of farmland necessary for
farmers, remittance and donation were mostly con- the economic survival of local agricultural economies
stant during the study year. Curtiss (2012) defined which not only affect the lives of individuals, but also
financial capital as means that enable the acquisition the ways in which society is organized (opined by
of real capital where it can be applied with positive 35.7% farmers). On an average, 39.0% farmers gave
returns. Cultivable land, using open water resources statements regarding urban development which had
and forests were addressed to determine the natural encroached upon some rural communities to such an
capital aspect of the farmers (Fig. 3). Only 10.0% extent that the community’s identify had been lost.
farmers reported about decrease in any kind of Suburbanization intensified income segregation and
natural capital in the study areas, whereas 47.0% and economic disparities among communities, as per
43.0% farmers stated that their natural capital was 49.7% farmers. Almost 59.0% farmers discoursed
increased and remained constant after land use that land use regulations that aimed at curbing land
conversion, respectively. The quantity of cultivable development would raise housing prices, making
land had fluctuated over time. Access to open water housing less affordable to middle and low income
resources also had an increasing trend in the study households by striking a balance between private
areas. In this case, Ahmed et al. (2017) also found property rights and the public interest. In these
that natural capital remained constant mostly in both regards, Hasan et al. (2017) revealed that following
cases of treated and controlled farmers in char areas the normal trend of land use change according to the
of Northern Bangladesh. previous years and areas under the baseline scenario,
The changing state of physical capital in farmers’ forest area would be augmented and water area as
livelihood has been shown in terms of households’ well as cultivated lands would be decreased, hence
day-to-day asset possession (Fig. 3). The study found steep inflation of built-up areas would become the
simultaneous trend of improved housing condition for main feature of land use and land cover change in
the farmers. Drinking water and sanitary latrine were Bangladesh in future.
also developed considerably. Quantity and quality of
household furniture such as chairs, tables, cots, etc. Farmers’ perception regarding livelihood
were also increased. Most of the farmers in the study improvement through changing land use decision
areas were found to use solar electricity. Overall,
58.0% farmers’ physical capital was increased in the The study already revealed that farmers’ livelihood
study areas after shifting land use decision. Kataria had more or less improved through their changing
et al. (2012) supported the findings partly where the decision for land use. On the basis of experience,
authors had provided typical examples of physical farmers had pointed some suggestions which are
capital goods in agriculture like farm machinery, represented in Table 9. It was observed that almost
farm buildings and different types of facilities and two-third of the farmers in Mymensingh district
equipment used in agricultural production. had perception on supply of agricultural inputs in
appropriate time, and necessary input and credit
Socioeconomic implications of changing land use support by the government for smooth agricultural
decision production (as per 76.0% and 68.0% farmers,
respectively). In addition, high or reasonable price
The socioeconomic consequences raised for changing of outputs and adoption of modern technologies and
land use decision in the study areas. About 50.0% effective agricultural extension services were also
farmers stated that conversion of farmland and forests suggested by the farmers (65.0% and 54.0% farmers,
to urban development reduced the amount of land respectively) in Mymensingh district. In Rajshahi
available for food and timber production (Fig. 4). Soil district, 75.0% farmers opined about ensuring fair
erosion, salinization, desertification and other soil crop (Mango) price in the harvesting periods and
degradations associated with agricultural production 67.0% of them focused on enhancing land produc-
and deforestation reduced land quality and tivity by using modern agricultural technologies.

123
358 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

Fig. 4 Socioeconomic 70.0

implications of land use
change. Source: Field 60.0

% of farmers
survey, 2018
50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
Mymensingh Rajshahi Khulna Overall
Decrease in amount of cultivable
52.0 48.0 51.0 50.3
land
Degradation of land quality 61.0 45.0 55.0 53.7
Reduction of agricultural
59.0 50.0 53.0 54.0
productivity
Decline in critical mass of farmland 35.0 35.0 37.0 35.7
Obstructing identity of
38.0 42.0 37.0 39.0
communities
Intensification of income
segregation and economic 46.0 49.0 54.0 49.7
disparities
Balancing private property rights
54.0 59.0 63.0 58.7
and the public interest
Study areas

Table 9 Farmers’ major suggestions for livelihood improvement through changing land use decision. Source: Field survey, 2018
Study areas Farmers’ suggestions % of
farmers

Mymensingh Timely supplies of agricultural inputs 76.0

Government input and credit support 68.0
High or reasonable price of outputs 65.0
Adoption of modern technologies and effective agricultural extension services 54.0
Rajshahi Ensuring the reasonable price of crop in the harvest seasons 75.0
Increasing land productivity through adoption of modern technologies 67.0
Area-wise ceiling may be fixed for non-agricultural uses of land 62.0
Khulna Arrangement of adequate training seminar and field day on the adaptation strategies of climate 85.0
vulnerability
Provision of innovative extension approaches and communication technologies 73.0
Environment-friendly rice production could be given the top most priority in the polder area 65.0
Introduction of special tax on land conversion 59.0

Area-wise ceiling may be fixed for non-agricultural vulnerability whereas 73% farmers suggested for
uses of land, suggested by 62.0% farmers in Rajshahi provision of innovative extension approaches (i.e.,
district. On the other hand, in Khulna district, 85.0% field demonstrations, farmer-to-farmer extension and
farmers argued toarrange adequate training seminar technological services through field schools.) and
and field day on the adaptation strategies of climate communication technologies (i.e., mobile phones,

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 359

Table 10 Recommendation matrix indicating issues that needed further research, extension and policy recommendation. Source:
Authors’ observation based on field survey, 2018
Facts of consideration Recommendations
Research Extension Policy
needed needed intervention
needed

Ensuring sufficient water availability for irrigation, well developed storage facilities √
and required number of labour during peak period
Nourishment of farmers’ knowledge about improving the living standards through √
adopting the best land use decision
Involvement of government and non-government organizations to provide basic √
acquaintance to the farmers
Arrangement of training, symposium programs by different local, national and √
international institutions
Regular extension contact and proper monitoring facilities from the view point of √ √
extension agents
Ensuring the availability of agricultural inputs at the time of requirement and fair of √
agricultural products
Enhancing direct input support as well as input subsidy programmes for the betterment √
of the farmers
Providing farmers’ access to modern agricultural equipments and machineries to adopt √ √
the changing land use decisions due to climatic variability
Creation of new product market considering comparative profitability analysis of high √ √
valued crops
Restricting the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and medicine in crop farming to a √ √
minimum limit with a view to protect the environment from being damaged
Adoption of eco-labeling can enhance market demand and restore environmental √
sustainability
Accessibility of the farmers to institutional credit √
Formation of savings and credit cooperative groups which can ensure the sale of the √
products of the member farmers
Cultivating short duration crops, practicing crop diversification, exercising crop √ √
rotation, early sowing, etc. to mitigate the climate change consequences

internet access). More than 60.0% farmers gave policy guidelines for improving farmers’ living
opinion on environment-friendly rice production standards through adopting the best land use deci-
which could be given the top most priority in the sions were proposed. The important finding from this
polder area. Introduction of special tax on land study is that most of the respondents experienced
conversion to restrict indiscriminate conversion of negative impacts of climate change on agricultural
farm land was also suggested by 59.0% farmers. activities. This changing climatic situation caused
stern damages to respondents’ cultivable land, assets,
agricultural enterprises and basic livelihood necessi-
Conclusion ties. The best land use decision by the farmers was
influenced by a number of determining factors where
This research was designed to identify and analyze farming experience and disaster loss in Mymensingh
farmers’ perception, climate change impact and district; farmer’s educational level, annual income
underlying factors influencing the conversion of and access to credit in Rajshahi district; and farmer’s
agricultural land use in Bangladesh. Furthermore, age and saline water intrusion in Khulna district had

123
360 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

significant influences. The study also revealed that quantitative as well as social, economic and environ-
climate change occurrences over the years and mental variables, primarily at the district level. So,
frequent natural calamities had a great impact on there exists scope for policy planners to adapt the
farmers’ decision about land conversion. Livelihood model and change the variables according to necessity.
status of the farmers incorporating asset possession,
activities and strategies, wellbeing, and external Acknowledgements We express our thanks to Bangladesh
Agricultural University, the villagers and respondents from
policies and institutions was improved by their
Mymensingh, Rajshahi and Khulna districts who
production practices. funded, participated and contributed to accomplish this study.
The study recommends some facts regarding farm- Present research work was supported by the Bangladesh
ers’ reflection on their livelihood improvement through Agricultural University Research System (BAURES). The
authors are also extends their gratitudes to anonymous
adopting the best land use decision. While asking the
reviewers for their valuable time, constructive comments and
respondents’ views towards increasing profitability of useful suggestions to improve the manuscript. We also
agriculture, they emphasized on raising of crop prices acknowledge the University of Tsukuba, Japan for
in the harvest seasons, timely supplies of agricultural technical support to carry out the research.
inputs at reasonable prices, and increasing land
Compliance with ethical standards
productivity through adoption of modern technologies
and effective agricultural extension services. Open Conflict of interest The authors declare that there is no issue
discussions with the respondents also exposed that of competing interest.
there should be immediate control for non-agricultural
Research involving human participants and/or ani-
use, population growth and introduction of special tax mals This article does not contain any studies with human
on converted land; and area specific ceiling may also be participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
imposed to restrict indiscriminate conversion of farm
land. Innovative extension approaches like field
demonstrations, farmer-to-farmer extension, provision References
of technological services through field schools and
other information and communication technologies Agarwal, C., Green, G. M., Evans, T. P., & Schweik, C. M.
(2001). A review and assessment of land-use change
like mobile phones, internet access could empower
models: Dynamics of space, time, and human choice.
them by increasing their decision-making power General Technical Report, NE-297, United States
besides access to and control over resources, and farm Department of Agriculture (USDA), USA.
incomes. Keeping different internal and external Ahmed, J. U., Raha, S. K., & Rahman, M. H. (2017). Potential
impacts of sustainable dairy farming in char areas of
factors in contrast, a set of policy actions is suggested
Northern Bangladesh. American Journal of Agricultural
by the researchers for the development of some policy and Biological Sciences, 12(3), 148–160.
guidelines for improving the living standards of the Akteruzzaman, M. (2005). Shifting rice farming to fish culture
farmers through adopting the best land use decision in in some selected areas of Mymensingh, Bangladesh: The
process, conflicts and impacts. Bangladesh Journal of
the context of Bangladesh which is presented in the
Fisheries Research, 9(1), 97–99.
form of recommendation matrix (Table 10). Alam, G. M. M., Alam, K., & Mushtaq, S. (2017). Climate
The generalization of the findings of this study is change perceptions and local adaptation strategies of
subject to certain limitations. For instance, the study hazard-prone rural households in Bangladesh. Climate
Risk Management, 17, 52–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
areas were selected to only three districts of Bangla-
crm.2017.06.006.
desh because of limited time and resource allocation. Allahyari, M. S., Poshtiban, A., & Koundinya, V. (2013).
Agricultural characteristics of these study areas might Effective factors on agricultural land use change in Guilan
not make a sense on overview of the country. The province, Iran. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,
4(11), 744–751.
sample size may not be statistically sufficient but can
Anisuzzaman, M., Islam, M. A., Rahman, K. M. M., & Shetu,
contribute to develop understanding about the deter- M. S. R. (2015). Shifting from rice production to shrimp
minants of shifting land use decision in these three culture in coastal zones of Khulna: Determination of the
regions. Even, the outcomes of Logit model are only determinants. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural
University, 13(2), 257–264.
rough indicators. As a supporting tool it can contribute
APO. (2003). Impact of land utilization systems on agricultural
to the debate on determinants of land conversion productivity. Tokyo: Asian Productivity Organization.
decision by the farmers in relation to the qualitative and

123
GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362 361

Archaux, F., & Wolters, V. (2006). Impact of summer drought socioeconomic diagnosis. Soil & Tillage Research, 176,
on forest biodiversity: What do we know? Annals of 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2017.11.003.
Forest Science, 63(6), 645–652. Dhar, A. R., & Uddin, M. T. (2017). Farmers’ livelihood
Ashley, C., & Hussein, K. (2000). Developing methodologies enhancement through conservation agriculture: A socioe-
for livelihood impact assessment: Experience of the Afri- conomic study. Düsseldorf: Lambert Academic
can Wildlife Foundation in East Africa. Working paper Publishing, OmniScriptum AraPers GmbH.
129, Overseas Development Institute, UK. Dorosh, P. A., Shahabuddin, Q., & Rahman, M. S. (2002).
Balcita, G. A. N. (2015). Determinants of farmers’ demand for Price responsiveness of foodgrain supply in Bangladesh
rice crop insurance in the Ilocos region, Philippines. and projections to 2020. Bangladesh Development Studies,
Master’s Thesis, Department of International Develop- 28(1&2), 47–75.
ment, Graduate School of International Development, Edwards, W. (2015). Crop and livestock land use analyzer: A
Nagoya University, Japan. tool to compare land use alternatives. https://www.exten
Barnhart, H. X., Haber, M. J., & Lin, L. I. (2007). An overview sion.iastate.edu/agdm/wholefarm/pdf/c1-15.pdf. Accessed
on assessing agreement with continuous measurement. August 16, 2018.
http://web1.sph.emory.edu/observeragreement/re Elum, Z. A., Modise, D. M., & Marr, A. (2017). Farmer’s
view_manuscript.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2018. perception of climate change and responsive strategies in
Bartlett, J. E., Kotrlik, J. W., & Higgins, C. C. (2001). Orga- three selected provinces of South Africa. Climate Risk
nizational research: Determining appropriate sample size Management, 16, 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.
in survey research. Information Technology, Learning, and 2016.11.001.
Performance Journal, 19(1), 43–50. FAO. (2011). Price and market-structure analysis for some
Basnett, Y., Henley, G., Howell, J., Jones, H., Lemma, A., & selected agricultural commodities in Sudan: Marketing
Pandey, P. R. (2014). Structural economic transformation costs and margins. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi-
in Nepal: A diagnostic study submitted to DFID Nepal. zation of the United Nations.
https://www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publi FAO. (2017). The future of food and agriculture—Trends and
cations-opinion-files/9019.pdf. Accessed August 16, challenges. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of
2018. the United Nations.
Cairns, M. (2015). Shifting cultivation and environmental change: Farrow, A., & Winograd, M. (2001). Land use modeling at the
Indigenous people, agriculture and forest conservation. regional scale: An input to rural sustainability indicators
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/publication/shifting-culti for Central America. Agriculture, Ecosystem and Envi-
vation- and-environmental-change-indigenous-people-agri- ronment, 85(1–3), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/
culture-and-forest. Accessed March 23, 2018. S0167-8809(01)00192-X.
Callo-Concha, D. (2018). Farmer perceptions and climate Giampietro, M., & Pimentel, D. (1993). The tightening conflict:
change adaptation in the West Africa Sudan Savannah: Population, energy use, and the ecology of agriculture.
Reality check in Dassari, Benin, and Dano, Burkina Faso. The NPG Forum. http://www.npg.org/forum_series/
Climate, 6(44), 1–19. TheTighteningConflict.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2018.
Coughlan, M. R., Nelson, D. R., Lonneman, M., & Block, A. E. Gómez-Limón, J. A., Vera-Toscano, E., & Garrido-Fernández,
(2017). Historical land use dynamics in the highly F. E. (2012). Farmers’ contribution to agricultural social
degraded landscape of the Calhoun critical zone obser- capital: Evidence from Southern Spain. http://digital.csic.
vatory. Land, 6(32), 2–20. es/bitstream/10261/58463/1/Farmers%20contribution%
Curtiss, J. (2012). Determinants of financial capital use: Review 20to%20agricultural%20social%20capital-Working%
of theories and implications for rural businesses. Working 20Paper-2012.pdf. Accessed April 09, 2018.
paper no. 19, Factor Markets. http://aei.pitt.edu/58522/1/ Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic econometrics. New York:
Factor_Markets_19.pdf. Accessed February 17, 2018. McGraw-Hill.
Dale, V. H., Brown, S., Haeubar, R. A., Hobbs, N. T., Huntly, Hasan, S. S., Deng, X., Li, Z., & Chen, D. (2017). Projections
N., Naiman, R. J., et al. (2000). Ecological principles and of future land use in Bangladesh under the background of
guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological baseline, ecological protection and economic develop-
Applications, 10(3), 639–670. ment. Sustainability, 9(505), 2–21.
Daskalakis, C., Laird, N. M., & Murphy, J. M. (2002). Hasan, M. N., Hossain, M. S., Bari, M. A., & Islam, M. R.
Regression analysis of multiple-source longitudinal out- (2013). Agricultural land availability in Bangladesh.
comes: A “Stirling County” depression study. American Dhaka: Soil Resource Development Institute.
Journal of Epidemiology, 155(1), 88–94. HIES. (2010). Preliminary report on household income and
DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Lon- expenditure survey, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Ministry
don: Department for International Development, of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Ban-
Government of the United Kingdom. gladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Dhar, A. R., Islam, M. M., Jannat, A., & Ahmed, J. U. (2018a). Hubacek, K., & Vazquez, J. (2002). The economics of land use
Wetland agribusiness aspects and potential in Bangladesh. change. Interim report (IR-02-015), International Institute
Data in Brief, 16, 617–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib. for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
2017.11.055. Iftekhar, M. S. (2006). Conservation and management of the
Dhar, A. R., Islam, M. M., Jannat, A., & Ahmed, J. U. (2018b). Bangladesh coastal ecosystem: Overview of an integrated
Adoption prospects and implication problems of practic- approach. Natural Resources Forum, 30(3), 230–237.
ing conservation agriculture in Bangladesh: A https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2006.00111.x.

123
362 GeoJournal (2020) 85:343–362

INTOSAI WGEA. (2013). Land use and land management Quasem, M. A. (2011). Conversion of agricultural land to non-
practices in environmental perspective. INTOSAI Work- agricultural uses in Bangladesh: Extent and determinants.
ing Group on Environmental Auditing. http:// Bangladesh Development Studies, 34(1), 59–85.
www.courdescomptes.ma/upload/_ftp/documents/wgea_ Rahman, M. T., & Hasan, M. N. (2003). Assessment of shifting
Land%20Use_view.pdf. Accessed January 21, 2018. of agricultural land to non-agricultural land in Bangla-
Kataria, K., Curtiss, J., & Balmann, A. (2012). Drivers of desh. Dhaka: SRDI, Ministry of Agriculture.
agricultural physical capital development: Theoretical Ramasamy, C., Balasubramanian, R., & Sivakumar, S. D.
framework and hypotheses. Working Paper No. 18, Factor (2005). Dynamics of land use pattern with special reference
Markets. http://aei.pitt.edu/58521/1/Factor_Markets_18. to fallow lands—An empirical investigation in Tamil Nadu.
pdf. Accessed February 17, 2018. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(4), 629–643.
Khan, M. M. H., & Nahar, N. (2014). Natural disasters: Reynolds, T. W., Waddington, S. R., Anderson, C. L., Chew,
Socioeconomic impacts in Bangladesh. Banglavision, 13 A., True, Z., & Cullen, A. (2015). Environmental impacts
(1), 58–67. and constraints associated with the production of major
Kirkby, M., Bracken, L., & Reaney, S. (2002). The influence of food crops in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Food
land use, soils and topography on the delivery of hillslope Security, 7, 795–822.
runoff to channels in SE Spain. Earth Surface Processes Rietveld, A. (2009). Livelihood strategies in a globalizing
and Landforms, 27(13), 1459–1473. world: Analysis of farmers’ strategies in Southern Mali
Lambin, E. F., Geist, H. J., & Lepers, E. (2003). Dynamics of land- with emphasis on milk production. https://www.wur.nl/
use and land cover change in tropical regions. Annual Review web/file?uuid=2581a043-2d65-498b-ab0b-f08644e77
of Environment and Resources, 28, 205–241. https://doi.org/ ca3&owner=a8e96f75-5975-4701-b36d-61a3f9bbda3d.
10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105459. Accessed January 26, 2018.
Lesschen, J. P., Verburg, P. H., & Staal, S. J. (2005). Statistical Sarker, F. I. M. G. W., Biswas, J. C., & Maniruzzaman, M.
methods for analyzing the spatial dimension of changes in (2014). Climate change adaptation and economic prof-
land use and farming systems. LUCC Report Series No. 7, itability: Crop land shifting to mango orchard in Rajshahi
International Human Dimensions Program on Global region. Bangladesh Rice Journal, 18(1&2), 8–17.
Environmental Change (IHDP). SFB. (2015). Improving the livelihood of smallholder farmers.
Mia, A. H., & Islam, M. R. (2005). Coastal land uses and Syngenta Foundation Bangladesh. www.syngentafounda
indicative land zones. Working paper no. WP040, Pro- tion.org/index.cfm?pageID=579. Accessed January 06,
gram Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone 2018.
Management Plan (PDO-ICZMP), Dhaka. Sharma, V. P., Jain, D., & De, S. (2012). Managing agricul-
Najafi, B. (2003). An overview of current land utilization tural commercialization for inclusive growth in South Asia.
systems and their contribution to agricultural productivity. Briefing Paper Number 6, GDN Agriculture Policy Series.
In Impact of land utilization systems on agricultural pro- SRDI. (2010). Land and soil statistical appraisal book of
ductivity. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan. Bangladesh. Dhaka: Soil Resource Development Institute,
NASA. (2006). Quantifying changes in the land over time: A Ministry of Agriculture.
landsat classroom activity. Washington, DC: National SRDI. (2013). Trend in the availability of agricultural land in
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Bangladesh. Dhaka: Soil Resource Development Institute,
Ndamani, F., & Watanabe, T. (2015). Farmers’ perceptions Ministry of Agriculture.
about adaptation practices to climate change and barriers Thapa, G., & Gaiha, R. (2011). Smallholder farming in Asia
to adaptation: A micro-level study in Ghana. Water, 7(9), and the Pacific: Challenges and opportunities. In Paper
4593–4604. presented at the IFAD conference on new directions for
NSW Government. (2011). Potential impacts of climate change smallholder agriculture, IFAD, Rome, Italy.
on biodiversity. New South Wales climate impact profile WB. (2006). Sustainable land management. Washington, D.C.:
technical report. https://climatechange.environment. The World Bank.
nsw.gov.au/~/media/43BD4541486144EF8858666D20 Zoundji, G. C., Witteveen, L., Vodouhê, S. D., & Lie, R.
D1E5B.ashx. Accessed March 28, 2018. (2017). When baobab flowers and rainmakers define the
Nyuor, A. B., Donkor, E., Aidoo, R., Buah, S. S., Naab, J. B., season: Farmers’ perceptions and adaptation strategies to
Nutsugah, S. K., et al. (2016). Economic impacts of climate climate change in West Africa. International Journal of
change on cereal production: Implications for sustainable Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences, 7(2), 8–21.
agriculture in Northern Ghana. Sustainability, 8(724), 2–17. Zubair, A. O. (2006). Change detection in land use and land
OECD. (2017). The governance of land use: Policy highlights. cover using remote sensing data and GIS (a case study of
Paris: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Ilorin and its environs in Kwara state). Masters Disser-
Development. tation, Department of Geography, University of Ibadan,
PC. (2009). Steps towards change. Planning Commission, Nigeria.
National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction II Zube, E. H. (1987). Perceived land use patterns and landscape
(Revised). Dhaka: Government of the People’s Republic values. Landscape Ecology, 1(1), 37–45.
of Bangladesh.
Penda, S. T. (2012). Human capital development for agricul- Publisher's Note
tural business in Nigeria. International Food and
Agribusiness Management Review, 15(special issue A), Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
89–91. claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

123