Skip to main content

Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh

Environment, Development and Sustainability volume 23, pages 17503–17534 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

Wetland ecosystem services have come under severe threat globally due to environmental changes and anthropogenic impacts. Understanding the trend and usages of the ecosystem services with associated reasons, conservation attitude and determinants of payment responses of local inhabitants based on wetland proximity can benefit the adjacent communities and policy makers. The major contribution of the present study is that the study investigated the patterns of use and livelihood significance of wetland ecosystem services in data-deficit regions of north-eastern Bangladesh through evaluating the perceptions of local experts and community people. In addition, we examined the willingness to pay (WTP) attitudes using two payment vehicles and three payment versions as well as examined the effect of livelihood assets on their WTP. Results showed that the ecosystem services satisfy the subsistence, semi-commercial, commercial and beneficial requirements of the adjacent communities. Amongst the twenty-nine identified species, a few were locally extinct, and the availability of a number of other species decreased substantially. Conservation attitudes revealed that 25% of the respondents were interested in cash payment of which 16% expressed exact amount, whilst 9% mentioned interval values. However, 45% respondents were willing to volunteer a given number of days per annum of which 27% and 18% elicited exact and interval values, respectively. Interval regression results showed that WTP for conservation of the ecosystem services was sensitive to livelihood capitals. The study suggests proximity-based policies, declaring the wetland as an ecologically critical area, and utilising volunteering efforts by local inhabitants for conservation.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  • Abdullah-Al-Mamun, M., Masum, K. M., Sarker, A. R., & Mansor, A. (2017). Ecosystem services assessment using a valuation framework for the Bangladesh Sundarbans: Livelihood contribution and degradation analysis. Journal of Forest Research, 28(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, I., Deaton, B. J., Sarker, R., & Virani, T. (2008). Wetland ownership and management in a common property resource setting: A case study of Hakaluki Haor in Bangladesh. Ecological Economics, 68(1–2), 429–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akwetaireho, S. (2009). Economic valuation of Mabamba Bay Wetland System of International Importance, Wakisostrict. . Alps-Adriatic University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria.

  • Alam, A. B. M. S., Chowdhury, M. S. M., & Sobhan, I. (2012). Biodiversity of Tanguar Haor: A Ramsar Site of Bangladesh Volume I: Wildlife, IUCN Bangladesh, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Pp. xi+234. Accessed on 18 August 2019.

  • Alam, K. (2008). Cost-benefit analysis of restoring Buriganga River. Bangladesh, Water Resources Development, 24(4), 593–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alam, M. K., & Marinova, D. (2003). Measuring the total value of a river clean up. Water, Science and Technology, 48, 149–156.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Amin, A. K. M. A., & Hossain, M. J. (2019). Impact of non-farm income on welfare in rural Bangladesh: Multilevel mixed-effects regression approach. World Development Perspectives, 13, 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin, A. K. M. K., Haque, M. A., & Alamgir, M. (2013). Analysis of the wetland degradation around the Vicinity of Dhaka City in Bangladesh. Asian Journal of Water, Environment and Pollution, 10(2), 19–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A., & Wunder, S. (2003). Exploring the forest-poverty link: Key concepts, issues and research implications. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 40. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.

  • Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). (2001). Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Statistics Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka. Adopted from Banglapedia, Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. https://www.asiaticsociety.org.bd. Accessed on 12 July 2019.

  • Belcher, B., Achdiawan, R., & Dewi, S. (2015). Forest-based livelihoods strategies conditioned by market remoteness and forest proximity in Jharkhand, India. World Development, 66, 269–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernal, B., & Mitsch, W. J. (2012). Comparing carbon sequestration in temperate freshwater wetland communities. Global Change Biology, 18, 1626–1647. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02619.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhandari, P. M., Mohan, K. C., Shrestha, S., Aryal, A., & Shrestha, U. B. (2016). Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder’s willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal. Applied Geography, 69, 25–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhatta, L. D., van Oort, B. E. H., Stork, N. E., & Baral, H. (2015). Ecosystem services and livelihoods in a changing climate: understanding local adaptations in the Upper Koshi. Nepal. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 11(2), 145–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., & Müller, F. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21, 17–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T. (2000). Contingent valuation: A user’s guide. Environmental Science and Technology.

  • Carson, R. T., Flores, N. E., & Meade, N. F. (2001). Contingent valuation: Controversies and evidence. Environmental and Resource Economics, 19, 173–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. T., & Hanemann, W. (2005). Contingent valuation. In K.-G. Mäler and J. Vincent (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, Chapter 17, pp. 821–936. Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier B.V.

  • Center for Natural Resource Studies (CNRS). (2004). Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry. Feasibility Report on MACH (Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry) outreach Program.

  • Chaudhary, S., Chettri, N., Uddin, K., Khatri, T. B., Dhakal, M., Bajracharya, B., & Ning, W. (2016). Implications of land cover change on ecosystems services and people’s dependency: A case study from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. . Ecol. Complex. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2016.04.002.

  • Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S. J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., & Turner, R. K. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., & Folke, C. (1997). Valuing ecosystem services with efficiency. (pp. 49–70). Fairness and sustainability as goals. Island Press.

  • Courtney, C. A., & White, A. T. (2000). Integrated coastal management in the Philippines: Testing new paradigms. Coastal Management, 28, 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Department for International Development (DFID). (2000). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. Victoria Street, London, SWE5JL, UK.

  • Gopal, B. (2012). Future of wetlands in tropical and subtropical Asia, especially in the face of climate change. Aquatic Sciences, 75(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-011-0247-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haab, T. C., & McConnell, K. E. (2002). Valuing environmental and natural resources. . Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • Haefele, M. A., Loomis, J. B., Merideth, R., Lien, A., Semmens, D. J., Dubovsky, J., Wiederholt, R., Thogmartin, W. E., Huang, T. K., McCracken, G., Medellin, R. A., Diffendorfer, J. E., & López-Hoffman, L. (2018). Willingness to pay for conservation of transborder migratory species: a case study of the Mexican free-tailed bat in the United States and Mexico. Environment Management, 62, 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-018-1046-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. A. R., Ahmed, M., Ojea, E., & Fernandes, J. A. (2018). Impacts and responses to environmental change in coastal livelihoods of south-west Bangladesh. Science of the Total Environment, 63(7), 954–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. J., & Al-Amin, A. K. M. A. (2019). Non-farm income and consumption expenditures in rural bangladesh: Empirical evidence from multilevel regression modelling. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 17(2), 377–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossain, M. A. R., & Wahab, M. A. (2010). The diversity of Cyprini forms throughout Bangladesh: present status and conservation challenges. In: Species Diversity and Extinction. ISBN: 978–1–61668–343–6, 448 p. Geraldine H. Tepper (ed). Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York, USA. 143–182.

  • Hung, L. T., Loomis, J. B., & Thinh, V. T. (2007). Comparing money and labour payment in contingent valuation: The case of forest fire prevention in Vietnamese context. Journal of International Development, 19, 173–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.1294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huq, N., Pedroso, R., Bruns, A., Ribbe, L., & Huq, S. (2020). Changing dynamics of livelihood dependence on ecosystem services at temporal and spatial scales: An assessment in the southern wetland areas of Bangladesh. Ecological Indicators, 110, 105855.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hussain, S. A., & Badola, R. (2010). Valuing mangrove benefits: contribution of mangrove forests to local livelihoods in Bhitarkanika conservation Area, East Coast of India Wetlands Ecol. Manage, 18, 321–331.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Bangladesh. (2015). Red list of Bangladesh. Crustaceans. Vol. 6. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka, Bangladesh, p. xvi + 256.

  • Islam, M., Saha, N., & Rahman, M. (2011). Economic activities decrease biodiversity in Hakaluki Haor, the largest inland fresh water ecosystem in Bangladesh. International Journal of Environmental Sciences, 2(2), 946–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, S. N. (2010). Threatened wetlands and ecologically sensitive ecosystems management in Bangladesh. Frontiers of Earth Science in China, 4(4), 438–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Islam, S. (2012). An Economic Study on Different Farming Systems in Dingapota Haor Area of Netrokona District. MS Thesis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.

  • Islam, S. N., & Gnauck, A. (2007). Effects of salinity intrusion in mangrove wetlands ecosystems in the Sundarbans: an alternative approach for sustainable management. In: kruszko T, Jerecka M, KosinskiK, eds. Wetlands: Monitoring Modelling and Management. Leiden: Taylor & Francis/Balkema, 315–322.

  • Islam, S., Uddin, M. T., Akteruzzaman, M., Rahman, M., & Haque, M. A. (2011). Profitability of alternative farming systems in Dingapota Haor area of Netrokona district. Progressive Agriculture, 22(1–2), 223–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, S., Burkhard, B., Van Daele, T., Staes, J., & Schneiders, A. (2015). ‘The matrix reloaded’: A review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling, 295, 21–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N., Clark, J. R. A., & Malesios, C. (2015). Social capital and willingness to pay for coastal defences in south-east England. Ecological Economics, 119, 74–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadykalo, A. N., & Findlay, C. S. (2016). The flow regulation services of wetlands. Ecosystem Services, 20, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/jecoser.2016.06.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamal, A. M., Shamsudduha, M., Ahmed, B., Hassan, S. K., Islam, M. S., Kelman, I., & Fordham, M. (2018). Resilience to flash floods in wetland communities of north-eastern Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 31, 478–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A. A. (1993). Freshwater wetlands in Bangladesh: opportunities and options. In: NishatA, Hussain Z, Roy MK, Karim A (eds) Freshwater wetlands in Bangladesh—issues and approaches for management. IUCN, Dhaka

  • Lamarque, P., Meyfroidt, P., Nettier, B., & Lavorel, S. (2014). How ecosystem services knowledge and values influence farmers’ decision-making. PLoS ONE, 9(9), e107572. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Missios, P., & Ferrara, I. (2011). A cross-country study of waste prevention and recycling. Land Economics, 88(4), 710–744.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). The role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and sustaining local livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 219–252. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.164507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, A. S. E., Lundhede, T. H., & Jacobsen, J. B. (2016). Local consequences of national policies – a spatial analysis of preferences for forest access reduction. Forest Policy and Economics, 73, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pal, S. (2011). Conservation or conversion of wetland in the Riverine Bengal basin: A question of hydro-ecological profit loss. Practising Geograph, 15(1), 09–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandit, D., Kunda, M., & Harun-Al-Rashid, A. (2015). Present status of fish biodiversity in Dekhar Haor, Bangladesh: A case study. World Journal of Fish and Marine Sciences, 7(4), 278–287. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wjfms.2015.7.4.95127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedersen, E., Weisner, S. E. B., & Johansson, M. (2019). Wetland areas’ direct contribution to residents’ well-being entitle them to high cultural ecosystem values. Science of the Total Environment, 646, 1315–1326.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pham, T. D., Kaida, N., Yoshino, K., Nguyen, X. H., Nguyen, H. T., & Bui, D. T. (2018). Willingness to pay for mangrove restoration in the context of climate change in the Cat Babiosphere reserve. Vietnam. Ocean and Coastal Management, 163, 269–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pondorfer, A., & Rehdanz, K. (2018). Eliciting Preferences for public goods in nonmonetized communities: Accounting for preference uncertainty. Land Economics, 94(1), 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quoc Vo, T., Kuenzer, C., & Oppelt, N. (2015). How remote sensing supports mangrove ecosystem service valuation: A case study in Ca Mau province. Vietnam. Ecosyst. Serv., 14, 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabby, T. G. (2012). Poverty and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Seasonally Submerged Haor Area of Netrokona District, Bangladesh. PhD Thesis, Faculty of Economics and Administration University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur.

  • Rahman, M. M., Jiang, Y., & Irvine, K. (2018). Assessing wetland services for improved development decision-making: A case study of mangroves in coastal Bangladesh. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 26, 563–580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rana, M. P., Chowdhury, M. S. H., Akhter, S. M. S. I., & S., & Koike, M. . (2009). Status and socio-economic significance of wetland in the tropics: a study from Bangladesh. Forest-Biogeosciences and Forestry, 2(5), 172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarif, S. M. K., Kabir, M. H., Suitana, S., Mahmud, M. S., & Mahjabun, S. (2016). Socioeconomic conditions, agricultural practices and communication status of the vulnerable haor people in Bangladesh. American Journal of Rural Development, 4(5), 100–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, S. U. (1993). Faunal diversity and their conservation in fresh water wetlands. In: NishatA, Hossain Z, Roy M K, Karim A, eds. Freshwater Wetlands in Bangladesh: Issues and Approaches for management. Gland: IUCN, 1–364.

  • Bebbington, A. J., & Batterbury, S. P. (2001). Transnational livelihoods and landscapes: Political ecologies of globalization. Ecumene, 8(4), 369–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, B., Rasul, G., & Chettri, N. (2015). The economic value of wetland ecosystem services: Evidence from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve. Nepal. Ecosystem Services, 12, 84–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sievers, M., Hale, R., Parris, K. M., & Swearer, S. E. (2018). Impacts of human-induced environmental change in wetlands on aquatic animals. Biological Reviews, 93, 529–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinare, H., Gordon, L. J., & Enfors, K. E. (2016). Assessment of ecosystem services and benefits in village landscapes – a case study from Burkina Faso. Elsevier. Ecosyst. Serv., 21, 141–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, K., Bhat, M., Bhatta, R., & Mathews, A. (2008). Factors influencing community participation in mangroves restoration: A contingent valuation analysis. Ocean & Coastal Management, 51, 476–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Daily Star. (2017). Flash Floods Hit Greater Sylhet Districts. Date access on 29 May 2017. http://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/flashfloods-hit-greater-sylhet-dists-1387114.

  • The Dhaka Tribune. (2017). Flash flood causes Tk. 1,000cr loss in Netrakona. Date access on 7 July 2019. https://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/nation/2017/04/27/flash-flood-causes-tk1000cr-loss-netrakona/

  • Thompson, P., & Colavito, L. (2007). Economic Value of Bangladesh Wetlands and Their Restoration. Technical Paper 6. Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry, Winrock International, Dhaka.

  • Tuan, T. H., My, N. H. D., Anh, L. T. Q., & Toan, N. V. (2014). Using contingent valuation method to estimate the WTP for mangrove restoration under the context of climate change: A case study of Thi Nai lagoon, Quy Nhon city. Vietnam. Ocean Coast Manag., 95, 198–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vella, F., & Verbeek, M. (1999). Estimating and interpreting models with endogenous treatment effects. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 17(4), 473–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbeek, M. (2004). A Guide to Modern Econometircs. (2nd ed.). Wiley.

  • Vo, T. H., Nguyen, V. T., & Simioni, M. (2020). Willingness to pay for mangrove preservation inxuan thuy national park, Vietnam: Do household knowledge and interest play a role? Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2020.1716854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voltaire, L., Donfouet, H. P. P., Pirrone, C., & Larzilliere, A. (2017). Respondent uncertainty and ordering effect on willingness to pay for salt marsh conservation in the Brest Roadstead (France). Ecological Economics, 137, 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vondolia, G.K., Eggert, H., Navrud, S., & Stage, J. (2011). What Do Respondents Bring to Contingent Valuation? A Comparison of Monetary and Labor Payment Vehicles. Environment for Development, Discussion Paper Series, EfD DP 11–13.

  • Watanabe, M. D. B., & Ortega, E. (2011). Ecosystem services and bio geochemical cycles on a global scale: Valuation of water, carbon and nitrogen processes. Environ Sci Pol., 1, 594–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.013.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, M. P., & Poe, G. L. (1998). Elicitation effects in contingent valuation: comparisons to a multiple bounded discrete choice approach. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 170–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Control function methods in applied econometrics. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 421–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedler, J. B., & Kercher, S. (2005). Wetland resources: Status, trends, ecosystem services and restorability. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 39–74.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Bangladesh Agricultural University Research Systems (BAURES) for funding this research. Moreover, the authors extend their gratitude to the Upazila Agriculture Officers, Upazila Fisheries Officers, Sub-Assistant Agriculture Officers, the enumerators and the respondents.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Agricultural Economics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh

    A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin, Nahid Sattar & Tahmina Akhter

  2. School of Commerce, Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia

    Khorshed Alam & Uttam Babu Shrestha

  3. Department of Agricultural Finance, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh

    Masudul Haque Prodhan

  4. Department of Fish, Biology and Genetics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh

    Mostafa A. R. Hossain

  5. Department of Agricultural Statistics, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 2202, Bangladesh

    M. J. Hossain

Authors
  1. A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khorshed Alam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Uttam Babu Shrestha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Masudul Haque Prodhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mostafa A. R. Hossain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nahid Sattar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. J. Hossain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tahmina Akhter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. K. M. Abdullah Al-Amin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Sample size determination

The precision-based sample size \((n)\) is determined using the following formula:

$$n = \frac{{Z(c/100)^{2} \times p\left( {1 - p} \right)}}{{d^{2} }}$$

where \(p\) is the proportion of responses that we are interested in, \(d\) is the margin of error, \(Z(c/100)\) is the critical value for the confidence level \(c.\)

Considering c = 95%, p = 0.50, and d = 5.17%, the total sample size was calculated as 360.

Appendix 2

See Figs. 6, 7 and Tables 9, 10, 11

Fig. 6
figure 6

Obtaining bids (payment card method). Note: a1 US $ = 83.71 Bangladeshi Taka (BDT), during the time of data collection dated 26 October 2018

Full size image
Fig. 7
figure 7

Obtaining bids (considering man days; 1 man day = 8 h). Note: 1 man day = 400 BDT (1 US$ = 83.71 BDT accessed on 26 October 2018)

Full size image
Table 9 Definition and summary statistics of the variables used in the study
Full size table
Table 10 Payment methods of respondents’ and their significance
Full size table
Table 11 Respondents responses to different payment versions
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Amin, A.K.M.A., Alam, K., Shrestha, U.B. et al. Ecosystems, livelihood assets and willingness to pay for wetland conservation in Bangladesh. Environ Dev Sustain 23, 17503–17534 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01398-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01398-w

Keywords

  • Wetland ecosystems
  • Livelihood significance
  • Livelihood assets
  • Payment cards format
  • Willingness to pay
  • Bangladesh