Topic Changing Pattern of Landuses in South - West Costal Region of Bangladesh : A Study on Rampal Union Objectives

:

•To explore the present land use pattern •To explore the trend of land use change •To identify the causes and consequences of land use change

Mustafa Atikul Mazid Student ID : 060401

Study area at a glance
Name : Giocode: Area : Rampal Union 017383 8895 acher 23 4401

Number of villages: Total household :

Total Population : 21,140 Male Population: 10,877 Feale Population: 10,263 Literacy rate : 41.6%

Methodolog y

Existing Landuse
Land Use categories Only Cropping Shrimp Cropping & Shrimp Water body Settlement Unused land Institutional Commercial Total
Amount of land ( Acre ) 837.0195 1110.096 5278.293 187.6845 904.6215 20.4585 198.3585 358.4685 8895
Source : field survey 2009

Source : field survey 2009

Source : field survey 2009

Change in Landuse
•Most of the change happened in 1981 to 2001 • •Major Changes happened in Crop land and shrimp farm • •Crop land degraded at the rate 239 . 71 acre each year • •At the same time shrimp and crop farm increased at the rate of 169 . 83 acre each year •

Year wise change in Landuse

Source : field survey 2009

Land Use

Use in different year 1981 Amount ( acres ) % of Land 76 . 42 1 . 93 3 . 86 3 12 . 13 0 . 19 0 . 32 2 . 14 100 . 00 1991 Amount ( acres ) 4393.24 540.81 2200 251.73 1012.25 17.79 153.88 324.67 8895 % of Land 49 . 39 6 . 08 24 . 74 2 . 83 11 . 38 0.2 1 . 73 3 . 65 100 . 00 2001 Amount ( acres ) 1658.92 724.05 4679.66 230.38 1061.17 18.68 186.79 333.56 8895 % of Land 18 . 65 8 . 14 52 . 61 2 . 59 11 . 93 0 . 21 2.1 3 . 75 100 . 00 2009 Amount ( acres ) 857.48 1110.1 5098.61 187.68 1090.53 0.0 192.13 358.47 8895 % of Land 09 . 64 12 . 48 57 . 32 2 . 11 12 . 26 0.0 2 . 16 4 . 03 100 . 00
Source : field survey 2009

Only Cropping Shrimp Cropping + Shrimp Water body Settlement

6797.56 171.67 343.35 266.85 1078.96

Unused land 16.9 Institutiona 28.46 l Commercial 190.35 total 8895

Land use change matrix 1981 to 1991
  Agri shrimp Agri+shrimp settlement waterbody institute commercial Road network Total conversion Agriculture Shrimp Agri+Shrimp Settlement Waterbody Institute Commercial Road network

4393 . 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4393 . 24

339 . 6 115 85  0  0  0  0 0 539 . 6

1885 . 55 56 . 8 257 . 15 0  0 0 0 0 2199 . 5

114 . 16 0 1.2 892 . 25 4 0 0 0 1011 . 61

5 . 27  0  0  0 246 0  0 0 251 . 27

47 . 42  0  0 64 5 28 . 46 9 0 153 . 88

9 . 32  0  0 123 11  0 181 . 35 0 324 . 67

3.6 0 0 1.2 0  0 0  14 . 2 19

Land use change matrix 1991 to 2001
Agriculture Shrimp Agri shrimp Agri+shrimp settlement waterbody institute commertial Road netwark Total conversion

Agri+Shrimp

Settlement

Waterbody

Institute

Commercial

Road network

1658 . 92  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 1658 . 92

157 340 . 81 227  0  0  0 0  0 724 . 81

2500 . 17 200 1972 . 99 0   0  0 7 0 4680 . 168

30 . 26  0  0 959 . 902 63  0 8 0 1061 . 162

46 0   0 16 168  0  0 0 230

 0  0  0 22  0 153 12 0 187

0   0  0 15 21  0 297 . 67 0 333 . 67

 0  0  0 1 . 23  0  0 0  19 20 . 23

Land use change matrix 2001 to 2009
Agriculture Agri shrimp Agri+shrimp settlement waterbody institute commertial Road netwark Total conversion Shrimp Agri+Shrimp Settlement Waterbody Institute Commercial Road network

857 . 48  0  0  0  0  0  0 0 857 . 48

106 . 6 628 . 3 375 . 2  0  0  0  0 0 1110 . 1

660 . 18 95 . 75 4264 42 18 0   0  0 5079 . 93

43 . 55 0 31 . 53 1003 12  0  0 0 1090 . 08

 0  0  0  0 187 0   0 0 187

 0  0  0 6   186  0 0  192

 0  0  0 10 14 1 333 . 47 0  358 . 47

 0  0 9.4  0  0  0 0  20 . 23 29 . 63

Landuse change matrix

Landuse conversion matrix
22 types of landuse conversion

9 types of land conversion ( 96 . 34 ) is most frequent among 22 type of land conversion
Cropping to shrimp culture ( 8 . 02 %) Cropping to mixed use of shrimp and cropping ( 67 . 14 %) Cropping to settlement ( 2 . 5 %) Shrimp cultivation to mixed use of shrimp and cropping ( 4 . 69 %) Settlement to commercial ( 1 . 97 %) Settlement to institutional ( 1 . 22 %) Mixed use of shrimp and cropping to shrimp ( 9 . 14 %) Water body to settlement ( 1 . 05 %) ( 0 . 61 %) Cropping Water body to . 68 %) to waterbody ( 0 commercial Settlement to Waterbody ( 0 . 21 %)
Cropping to institute ( 0 . 63 %) Cropping to commercial ( 0 . 12 %)

Settlement to Road ( 0 . 03 %) Water body to mixed use of shrimp and cropping ( 0

Cropping to road ( 0 . 05 %) Water body to institute ( 0 . 07 %) Mixed use of shrimp and cropping to Commercial to mixed use of shrimp and cropping ( 0 settlement ( 0 . 05 %) Commercial to settlement ( 0 . 11 %) Mixed use of shrimp and cropping to road Commercial to institute ( 0 . 28 %) ( 0 . 12 %) Settlement to mixed use of shrimp and cropping ( 0 . 56 %)

1991 1981

Existing demography •Total population : 27,179* •Average household size :5.25 •Male female ratio, 139 : 100 •89 . 52 % Respondent are original residence •Among the migrated people 70 . 27 % from other union and 29 . 72 % from other upazila
BBS 2001*

Male

Female
Source : field survey 2009

Population pyramid of the study area

Income group and no of household

Source : field survey 2009

Source: field survey 2009

Geomorphology These waterways are of varying width and length and occupy an area of 581.41 acres Within the polder no 34-b 64.68% area has soil salinity of 4 – 8 x 103dS m-1 Water salinity 10dSm-1 to 30 dSm-1

Urbanization

Rampal upazila headquarters is the only urban area (Rampal Mauza) of the unio
Year Mauza Name with Geo - code 813 - Rampal 813 - Rampal 813 - Rampal Area ( sq . km .) H / H

Population
Total Male 548 887 1 , 144 Female 439 598 905

Sex ratio 124 148 126

Density Literac
y

( 7 + Yrs . ) 2 , 443 1 , 617 2 , 227 55 . 01 77 . 5 65 . 94

1981 1991 2001

0 . 404 0 . 918 0 . 918

163 333 446

987 1 , 485 2 , 049

Source :BBS 2001, 1991, 1981

Urban land - use coefficients ( U ) = 0 . 167

Urban land-use coefficients (U) represent the amount of additional land converted to urban use for each person added to the population base. Urban land-use coefficients (U) are defined as the change in urban land divided by the change in population: U = ( UL2- UL1)/( P2- P1) Where: UL2 = acres of urban land in period 2, UL1 = acres of urban land in period 1, P2 = population in period 2, and P1 = population in period 1.

Cause analysis
•Land and landuse is the most sensitive and most influencing component of the environment • •To identify the cause of land use change (3rd objective) some case study has reviewed and a focus group discussion has been conducted • •Different type of causes has been found for different type of landuse conversion • •To rank order the causes Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) has been conducted

•The AHP is a more complicated method than the contingent choice which is usually based on simpler choices or tradeoffs • •The AHP avoids directly asking the respondents why they have changed their landuse, this is easier by this process, to understand the factors acting behind it •The AHP is more screening process to get the public opinion. • •The AHP can be used for a wide variety of applications • •The AHP convert the qualitative value to quantitative

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for conversion of crop field to commercial purpose use

Causes Population growth and increased Proximity to settlement Proximity to road network Proximity to activity center (node)
C1 >C4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C2>C3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 C2 > C4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 C3>C4 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1

Cause 1: demand Cause 2: Cause 3: Cause 4: Coding the influencing factors from Priority base raw data
Cause 1 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 Cause 2 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 4 2 4 1 4 3 Cause 3 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 2 Cause 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 3 2 1 C1 > C 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 C1>C3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

riable frequency average > = 0.5, particular raw position matrix value will be 2 le frequency average < 0.5, particular raw position matrix value will be 0
0.66 2 0.50+ = 2 0.58 2 or 0.42 0 0.05- =0 0.40 0 0.36 0 0.44 0

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for conversion of crop field to commercial purpose use
Develop the Comparison Matrix
Cause 1 Cause 2 Cause 3 Cause 4 Cause 1 Cause 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 2 2 Cause 3 2 0 1 2 Cause 4 0 0 0 1 K = Sum of each row= 5 K1 K2 = 1 K3 = 3 K4 = 7

Here, 0 = cause i is less important th cause j 1 = cause i is same important cause j 2 = cause i is more important th cause j

Develop the Judgment Matrix
Cause 1 Cause Cause Cause Cause 1 2 3 4 Cause 2 Cause 3 Cause 4 1 5.67 3.33 0.3 0.176 1 0.3 0.125 0.3 3.33 1 0.176 Format for Judgment Matrix 3.33 8 5.67 1 r ij = [(K i - K j ) / (K max - K min )] * (b m - 1 ) + 1 } ……………….( i ) when , K i >=K i

r ij = 1 / {[( K i - K j ) / (K max - K min )] * (b m - 1 ) + 1 } …………..( ii ) when ,
K i <K i Here , b m = K max + K min Note : •"i" and " j" of "rij " are the correspondent to the "i" and "j" from Ki and Kj. . •"i" and "j" respectively represent the coding of row & volume tin the judgment matrix. •Ki and Kj mean the cumulative value of every row (∑
I =4

Ki).

•Kmax and Kmin respectively mean the maximum and minimum of K value (from

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for conversion of crop field to commercial purpose use
Normalized Matrix
Cause 1 Cause Cause Cause Cause Total 1 2 3 4 1 0.176 0.3 3.33
4.806

Cause 2 5.67 1 3.33 8
18

Cause 3 3.33 0.3 1 5.67
10.3

Cause 4 0.3 0.125 0.176 1
1.601

Cause 1 Cause Cause Cause Cause Total 1 2 3 4
0.208073 0.036621 0.062422 0.692884 1

Cause 2
0.315 0.055556 0.185 0.444444 1

Cause 3
0.323301 0.029126 0.097087 0.550485 1

Cause 4
0.187383 0.078076 0.109931 0.62461 1

Priority vector or Normalized Principle Eigen Vector
Cause 1 Cause Cause Cause Cause 1 2 3 4
0.208073 0.036621 0.062422 0.692884

Cause 2
0.315 0.055556 0.185 0.444444

Cause 3
0.323301 0.029126 0.097087 0.550485

Cause 4
0.187383 0.078076 0.109931 0.62461

Level of influence
0 . 258439 0 . 049845 0 . 11361 0 . 578106

Final Ranking
Priority Priority demand Priority Priority

1: Proximity to activity center (node) 2: Population growth and increased 3: Proximity to road network 4: Proximity to settlement

Cause of cropping to shrimp culture or mixed use of shrimp and cropping
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6

High income from shrimp cultivation Loss in crop production and low income from crop Motivated by other Relatively low labor consumption In shrimp cultivation then crop production Presser from powerful farmer No alternative

Cropping to settlement
Priority Population growth and extra Demand Priority Desire of more settlement space 1 Priority Proximity to existing settlement Availability of agriculture land Vulnerabilityroad network Proximety against serviceshazard natural 2 7 6 5 4 3

Shrimp cultivation to mixed use of shrimp and cropping
Priority Desire for extra income Priority Motivated by other 1 Priority Technologicalshrimp harvesting in low salinity preod Reduction of ability 2 4 3

Settlement to commercial
Priority Increase of demand and desire for extra income Priority Proximity to road network 1 Priority Proximity to activity center or growth center (node) 2 3

Mixed use of shrimp and cropping to shrimp
Priority Satisfied in income from shrimp only Priority Extra maintenance cost 1 Priority Risk of contamination of unwanted thing Extra labor Reduction of salinity in shrimp farm 2 5 4 3

Water body to settlement
Priority Population growth and need for extra settlement space Priority Desire to stay in native community 1 Priority Availability existing body Proximity to of water services 2 4 3

Water body to commercial
Priority Incre ase of demand and desire for extra income Priority Proxi mity to activity center or growth center 1 Priority Proximity to road network Availability of water body 2 4 3

Effect on Shrimp cultivation
•The average net income from shrimp is 47 , 550 BDT/Acre •Maximum net income is 62 , 500 BDT/Acre •The cost has increased in 2000. •No Shrimp processing industry has established in the area.

•Productivity of shrimp also

Source : field survey 2009

increased 71 Kg / Acre (1981) to 121 Kg / Acre (2009) •It will cross 132 Kg / Acre in 2015 •Return from shrimp culture Is mote then two times then investment •So people are not interested to move from shrimp

Source : field survey 2009

Effect on crop production
Shrimp cultivation Preservation of salt water

•1276 Shrimp farm ( Ghar ) • •Soil salinity more then 8 dSm -1

Construction of embankment

•Water salinity 10dSm -1 to 30 dSm -1 •

River bad siltation

Hamper natura l draina ge system

Increase salinity of shrimp farm and adjacent land

Reduction of fertility and productivi ty Increase cost Low return from crop

Seeking alternative Rich farmer shift from crop cultivation to shrimp cultivation

Small farmers can not change landuse because of capital

Soil salinity classification on the basis of plant growth condition . 3 Salinity Class Plant growth condition
Ec x 10 dS m -1
None saline <2 (S 0 ) Slightly saline 2 – 4 (S 1 ) Moderate saline 4 - 8 (S 2 ) Saline ( S 3 ) 8 - 16 Highly saline (S 4 )

Low income of smoll farmer

Salinity effects mostly negligible Yields of very sensitive crops may be restricted Yields of many crops are restricted yield satisfactorily

Lease crop land or sale crop land

> 16

Only tolerant crops yield satisfactorily Only very tolerant crops

Source : Karim , Z . et al . 1990 cited in R . Karim 2000

Rapid conversion from crop cultivation to shrimp cultivation

Effect on Crop Production

•Crop productivity of the land has decreased 38 . 36 Kg / Acre each year from 1981 to 2009. •In 1990 wheat and jute production was totally stopped because they are no longer sweet able for them •64 . 3 % respondent who cultivated wheat or jute claimed about low productivity

•Production

cost

of

paddy

increased 4 times now then 1981 and the return from paddy has decreased • •It is forecasted that after 2012 cost of paddy production will get higher than its return •

Source : Karim, Z. et al. 1990 and field survey 200

Effect on Fresh water Fish Cultivation
Year Number of pond Percentage of total Decrease

1981 1991 2001 2009

191 162 102 53

54.10% 45.89% 28.9% 14.44%

N/A 15.1% 31.25% 26.56%

Reduction of fresh water fish cultivatio

Effect on Livestock and Poultry
N u m b e r o f l i v e s t o c k

Reason for changing number of livestock
Causes Cost of Livestock increased Cattle - food crises No need of livestock No alternative Frequency 132 113 31 77 Percentage 37 . 39 32 . 01 8 . 78 21 . 81

Effect on land wonership
•Small farmer and landless farmer increased • •Marginal farmer and medium farmer decreased • •Large farmer increased slightly

10 5

Size of land Household Holding category (acre) <0.5 0.51-2.5 2.51-7.5 7.51-16.0 16+ Landless Marginal Small Medium Large

10 2

9 0

y c n u q e r F
6 0 3 0

Skewness 4.046 St. Deviation 4.99 acre Mean 4.47 acre

M a =4 7 e n .4 S . D v =4 9 td e . .9 8 N=3 3 5 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0

T ta la din2 0 o l n 09

Effect on land tenureship

Shrimp cultivation Construction of embankment

Preservation of salt water

River bad siltation

Hamper natura l draina ge system

Increase salinity of shrimp farm and adjacent land

Reduction of fertility and productivi ty Increase cost Low return from crop

Seeking alternative

Rich farmer shift from crop cultivation to shrimp cultivation

Small farmers can not change landuse because of capital

High income of rich farmer

Low income of small farmer

Take lease or buy land

Lease crop land or sale crop land

Skewed land tenure system

Effect on Economy and Employment

High return after changing landuse for shrimp farmer

Effect on Economy and Employment
20 0

8 0

10 5

6 0

10 0

4 0

y c n u q e r F

y c n u q e r F
5 0

2 0

0 0 2 00 500 500 0 00 700 500 100 0 00 0

Ma = 0 6 47 en 1 35 . 5 S . Dv = t d e. 1 31. 1 1 4 72 8 N 33 =5 15 0 0 20 0

M a =4 0 5 8 e n 6 8 .9 S . D v =1 9 3 6 td e . 8 7 .6 9 N=3 3 5 0 200 00 400 00 600 00 800 00 100 000 100 200 100 400 100 600

I c m o h u e od n2 0 no e f o s h l i 0 9

E p n itu eo h u e o in2 0 x e d r f o s h ld 09

For 70 % people main source of income is agriculture (shrimp/crop production)

Secondary Occupation 60% have secondary occupation

Effect on Economy and Employment
•Shrimp cultivation is less labor intensive then crop cultivation • •In the Union there is no shrimp industry • •Seasonal unemployment from September to December • •1.7 % (6 respondents) are seasonal migration (toward urban area) in 2009. All of them are landless farmer

Source MPO,1986 Cited in R. Karim 2000

•High benefit (about 100 %) and Sweetable condition for shrimp cultivation (Soil salinity more then 8 dSm -1 and Water salinity 10dSm -1 to 30 dSm -1 .Introduced shrimp cultivation in 1981 when productivity was 71Kg / Acre • •Within 1991 , 2405 Acre of Agriculture land converted to shrimp cultivation and the shrimp production was 79Kg / Acre when rice productivity fall 583Kg / Acre from 1134 Kg / Acre in 1981 . in this time wheat and jute production fallen to 0 %. 1981. 0%. • •In 2001 , another 2735 Acre of Agriculture land converted to shrimp cultivation and the shrimp production was 96Kg / Acre when rice productivity fall 393Kg / Acre from 583 Kg / Acre in 1981 . 1981. • •And now in 2009 , 71 . 82 % land are used for shrimp production and only 9 . 41 % land are remaining agriculture land. As the productivity of crop remains to falling it is forecasted that within 5 year the there will no land left for agriculture use only. But from June-July to October-November in this period when shrimp productivity is low due to low rainy season 59 . 34 % people cultivate paddy in the shrimp farm.

Thank You

For this study eight major land use categories and their subcategories have identified in the study area, there are, •Settlement
üLeaving house üCourtyard gardening üOther household use üSquatter

•Road networks

•Agriculture

üCropping •Institutional use üHorticulture üAdministrative üFruit gardening institute üForestry üNon-governmental üFishery use üShrim üEducational p institute üFish üReligious institute farm üCultural institute üLivestock üRecreational use (Poultry/Dairy) üHealthcare center üGraveyard •Water bodies üWest disposal üPond üTransportation/Co üCanal mmu nication üRiver üCommunity/Munici üBill/Marshland pal Service

üNational highway üRegional highway üFidder road üRural road üRural road 1 üRural road 2 üRural road 3 ü

üRecreational use üOpen space üIndustrial institute üManufacture and processing üWare house/Storage üRestricted area üDefense and Security üMiscellanies

•Major commercial use

üHat/Bazaar/Growt h center üShops üBarren land üKhas land

•Unused land

•Other use

Objectives-output matrix:

Conceptual Framework
Land Landuse Time Amount of Landuse for each Class Previous landuse Landuse Change Time of Change Causes of Change Consequences of Change Amount of Change Changing pattern of landuse Existing Landuse Landuse Classification

Sample size
sample household for the study is 353 at 95 % Level of confidence where sampling error is 5 %. Formula to calculate the sample size
z p q e N n = 1 . 96 ( for 95 % confidence = 0 . 50 = 0 . 50 ( because p + q = 1 ) = 0 . 05 = 4401 = estimated sample size interval )

Selection of Samples from population
In the study area there are 23 villages . Number of sample for each village has distributed proportionally according to the number of household .

 

Agriculture 0

Agricultur Shrimp Agri + shrimp Settlement Waterbody e

603 . 2

5045 . 9

187 . 97 0 32 . 73 0 79 0 8 0 307 . 7

51 . 27 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 67 . 27

Institut Commercial Road e

Total

47 . 42

9 . 32

3.6

5948 . 68 352 . 55 729 . 33 300 . 43 148 1 36 0 7515 . 99

0 Agri + shrimp 0 Settlement 0 Waterbody 0 Institute 0 Commercial 0 Road 0 Total 0
Shrimp

0 687 . 2 0 0 0 0 0 1290 . 4

352 . 55 0 42 18 0 7 0 5465 . 45

0 0 92 5 0 21 0 165 . 42

0 0 148 46 1 0 0 204 . 32

0 9.4 2 . 43 0 0 0 0 15 . 43

 

Agricultur Shrimp Agri + shrimp Settlement Waterbody e 8 . 03 67 . 14 2 . 50 0 . 68 Agriculture 0 . 00 Shrimp
0 . 00 0 . 00 9 . 14 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 17 . 17 4 . 69 0 . 00 0 . 56 0 . 24 0 . 00 0 . 09 0 . 00 72 . 72 0 . 00 0 . 44 0 . 00 1 . 05 0 . 00 0 . 11 0 . 00 4 . 09 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 21 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 90

Institut Commercial Road e. 63 0 0 . 12 0 . 05
0 . 00 0 . 00 1 . 22 0 . 07 0 . 00 0 . 28 0 . 00 2 . 20 0 . 00 0 . 00 1 . 97 0 . 61 0 . 01 0 . 00 0 . 00 2 . 72 0 . 00 0 . 13 0 . 03 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 00 0 . 21

Total
79 . 15 4 . 69 9 . 70 4 . 00 1 . 97 0 . 01 0 . 48 0 . 00 100 . 00

Agri + shrimp 0 . 00 Settlement 0 . 00 Waterbody Institute Road Total
0 . 00 0 . 00

Commercial 0 . 00
0 . 00 0 . 00

Image

Non-directional Edge Processing

.shp file

Classified image

S lnt t l r n e fms c m o l go nfeda d e ea l co snB n l d s a d o e oe ta ai i y oea c o o t o mny r w i l n v g t be r p i a g eh n s m p t ni l a co s hc c ud e utv t di t e ai ez n r p w i h o l b c l i ae n h s ln o e
E crc l C n ut ne ( S ) l t i a o d ca c d /m e 0 0 .0 Re ic B rle a y Cwe o pa G udu ro n n t C to ot n Ptt o ao 5 0 .0 1 .0 0 0 1 .0 5 0 2 .0 0 0 2 .0 5 0 3 .0 0 0

s p o r C

O io n n S in c p ah C c me uu b r W t rm lo ae e n Ppe epr S d nG s u a ra s

Per cent yieldreduction

0

1 0

2 5

5 0
et al ., 1990

>0 5

S ource: K arim, Z and .

Source: Karim. Z and et al., 1990 cited in R. Karim 2000