Abstract
The process of incorporating the priorities of local communities in developing countries is important in the formulation of effective policies for environmental and natural resource conservation. With this outlook, this study was conducted to assess community priorities and socio-cultural values associated with ecosystem services provided by the socio-ecological landscapes. The study was carried out in 31 villages across four major agriculture-based land-use systems of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya, covering an elevation gradient of 700–2300 m. Data on perception of ecosystem services were collected by focus group discussions (n = 37) using participatory rural appraisal tools, like listing, ranking, and trend analysis. Twenty-eight ecosystem services belonging to provisioning, regulating, cultural, and supporting services were identified as important by the local communities, majority of which were associated with well-being and socio-economic values of the community. Differences in perception across different localities were observed, which relates to diversified livelihood strategies. Provisioning and cultural services were readily recognized by the local communities; yet, regulating services were valued over them. Provision and regulation of freshwater were found to be the most highly prioritized ecosystem services across the landscape, suggesting the perceived role and importance of freshwater in rural well-being. Local communities perceived declining trends in the availability of many ecosystem services (mostly provisioning), particularly freshwater. This calls for an urgent need for formulation of better policies and management interventions to restore the declining yet highly prioritized services in the rural areas of the landscape, through stakeholder consultations that involve the local communities.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Abram NK, Meijaard E, Ancrenaz M, Runting RK, Wells JA, et al. (2014) Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo. Ecosyst Serv 7:116–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.11.004
Aronson J, Alexander S (2013) Ecosystem restoration is now a global priority: time to roll up our sleeves. Restor Ecol 21(3):293–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12011
Asah ST, Guerry AD, Blahna DJ, Lawler JJ (2014) Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosyst Serv 10:180–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.003
Badola R, Barthwal S, Hussain SA (2012) Attitudes of local communities towards conservation of mangrove forests: a case study from the east coast of India. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 96:188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.11.016
Bagstad KJ, Reed JM, Semmens DJ, Sherrouse BC, Troy A (2016) Linking biophysical models and public preferences for ecosystem service assessments: a case study for the Southern Rocky Mountains. Reg Environ Change 16(7):2005–2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0756-7
Buffum B (2012) Why is there no tragedy in these commons? An analysis of forest user groups and forest policy in Bhutan. Sustainability 4(7):1448–1465. https://doi.org/10.3390/su4071448
Byg A, Salick J (2009) Local perspectives on a global phenomenon—climate change in Eastern Tibetan villages. Glob Environ Chang 19(2):156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.010
Cáceres DM, Tapella E, Quétier F, Díaz S (2015) The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecol Soc 20(1):62. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07297-200162
Chettri N, Aryal K, Thapa S, Uddin K, Kandel P, et al. (2021) Contribution of ecosystem services to rural livelihoods in a changing landscape: a case study from the Eastern Himalaya. Land Use Policy 109:105643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105643
De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41(3):393–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00089-7
Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, et al. (2015) The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002
Dorji T, Brookes JD, Facelli JM, Sears RR, Norbu T, et al. (2019) Socio-cultural values of ecosystem services from Oak Forests in the Eastern Himalaya. Sustainability 11(8):2250. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082250
Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Haines-Young R, Potschin-Young M (2018) Revision of the common international classification for ecosystem services (CICES V5. 1): a policy brief. One Ecosyst 3:e27108. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e27108
Ingty T, Bawa KS (2012) Climate change and indigenous people. Climate change in Sikkim: patterns, impacts and initiatives. Information and Public Relations Department, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, India. [online] URL: http://www.sikkimforest.gov.in/climate-change-in-sikkim/climate%20change%20in%20sikkim, 275–290
Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera PA, Montes C, Martín-López B (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human wellbeing. Ecol Econ 108:36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.09.028
IPBES (2019) Summary for policy makers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Díaz S, Settele J, Brondízio ES, Ngo HT, Guèze M, Agard J, Arneth A, Balvanera P, Brauman KA, Butchart SHM, Chan KMA, Garibaldi LA, Ichii K, Liu J, Subramanian SM, Midgley GF, Miloslavich P, Molnár Z, Obura D, Pfaff A, Polasky S, Purvis A, Razzaque J, Reyers B, Roy Chowdhury R, Shin YJ, Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Willis KJ, Zayas CN (Eds.). IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56p
Kendal D, Ford RM, Anderson NM, Farrar A (2015) The VALS: a new tool to measure people’s general valued attributes of landscapes. J Environ Manage 163:224–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.08.017
Klain SC, Chan KM (2012) Navigating coastal values: participatory mapping of ecosystem services for spatial planning. Ecol Econ 82:104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.008
Klein JA, Tucker CM, Nolin AW, Hopping KA, Reid RS et al (2019) Catalyzing transformations to sustainability in the world’s mountains. Earth’s Future 7(5):547–557. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001024
Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, et al. (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Change 11(4):791–804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0
Landini F (2011) Income and use of money in the peasant economy. Contributions to rural development psychology from a case study. J Alt Perspect Soc Sci 3(3):674–703
López-Marrero T, Hermansen-Báez LA (2011) Participatory listing, ranking, and scoring of ecosystem services and drivers of change. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Gainesville
López-Santiago CA, Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, Plieninger T, Martín EG, et al. (2014) Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: the case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain. Ecol Soc 19(2):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06401-190227
Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, et al. (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS one 7(6):e38970. https://doi.org/10.3390/land9090330
McNally CG, Gold AJ, Pollnac RB, Kiwango HR (2016) Stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services of the Wami River and Estuary. Ecol Soc 21(3):34. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08611-210334
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Washington, DC, USA, 2005
Mittermeier RA, Turner WR, Larsen FW, Brooks TM, Gascon C (2011) Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots. In Biodiversity hotspots (pp 3–22). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Mukherjee D (2012) Resource conservation through indigenous farming system in hills of West Bengal. J Crop Weed 8(1):160–164
Murali R, Redpath S, Mishra C (2017) The value of ecosystem services in the high altitude Spiti Valley, Indian Trans-Himalaya. Ecosyst Serv 28:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.018
Ouko CA, Mulwa R, Kibugi R, Owuor MA, Zaehringer JG, Oguge NO (2018) Community perceptions of ecosystem services and the management of Mt. Marsabit Forest in Northern Kenya. Environments 5(11):121. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments5110121
Oteros-Rozas E, Martín-López B, González JA, Plieninger T, López CA, et al. (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Reg Environ Change 14(4):1269–1289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0571-y
Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U (2016) Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Advances in Ecological Research 54:245–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003
Paudyal K, Baral H, Keenan RJ (2018) Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal. For Policy Econ 90:67–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2018.01.011
Paudyal K, Baral H, Burkhard B, Bhandari SP, Keenan RJ (2015) Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosyst Serv 13:81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.007
Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira HM, Vicente L (2005) Ecosystem services and human wellbeing: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecol Soc 10(2):14 (http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art14/)
Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013
Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 365(1554):2959–2971. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0143
Pradhan A, Yonle R (2022) Socio-ecological assessment of squamate reptiles in a human-modified ecosystem of Darjeeling, Eastern Himalaya. Hum Dimens Wildl 27(2):134–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2021.1905114
Rai RK, Scarborough H (2015) Understanding the effects of the invasive plants on rural forest-dependent communities. Small-Scale Forestry 14(1):59–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-014-9273-7
Scholte SS, Van Teeffelen AJ, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.03.007
Sears RR, Choden K, Dorji T, Dukpa D, Phuntsho S, et al. (2018) Bhutan’s forests through the framework of ecosystem services: rapid assessment in three forest types. Forests 9(11):675. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9110675
Sharma G, Dhakal T (2011) Opportunities and challenges of the globally important traditional agriculture heritage systems of the Sikkim Himalaya. Biodiversity of Sikkim: exploring and conserving a global hotspot. IPR Department, Government of Sikkim, Gangtok, 411–440
Sharma G, Namchu C, Nyima K, Luitel M, Singh S, et al. (2020a) Water management systems of two towns in the Eastern Himalaya: case studies of Singtam in Sikkim and Kalimpong in West Bengal states of India. Water Policy 22(S1):107–129. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.229
Sharma G, Partap U, Sharma E, Rasul G, Awasthe RK (2016) Agrobiodiversity in the Sikkim Himalaya: sociocultural significance, status, practices, and challenges. ICIMOD Working Paper 2016/5 Kathmandu: ICIMOD
Sharma K, Acharya BK, Sharma G, Valente D, Pasimeni MR, et al. (2020b) Land use effect on butterfly alpha and beta diversity in the Eastern Himalaya, India. Ecol Indic 110:105605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105605
Sharma R, Xu J, Sharma G (2007) Traditional agroforestry in the eastern Himalayan region: land management system supporting ecosystem services. Trop Ecol 48(2):189
Shneiderman S, Turin M (2006) Seeking the tribe: ethno-politics in Darjeeling and Sikkim. Himal Southasian 19(2):54–58
Smith HF, Sullivan CA (2014) Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—farmers’ perceptions. Ecol Econ 98:72–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008
Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT, Tekken V, Bustamante JV, et al. (2014) Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 10(1):40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2014.884166
TEEB (2010) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. In: London. Earthscan, Washington, DC
van Oort B, Bhatta LD, Baral H, Rai RK, Dhakal M, et al. (2015) Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi river basin, Nepal. Ecosyst Serv 13:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.11.004
Vira B, Adams B, Agarwal C, Badiger S, Hope RA, et al. (2012) Negotiating trade-offs: choices about ecosystem services for poverty alleviation. Econ Polit Wkly 47:67–75
Włodarczyk-Marciniak R, Frankiewicz P, Krauze K (2020) Socio-cultural valuation of Polish agricultural landscape components by farmers and its consequences. J Rural Stud 74:190–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.01.017
Acknowledgements
We recognize the contributions of Vikram Pradhan, Yougesh Tamang, and project field assistants Mingma Tamang, Diwakar Gurung, and Subash Rai during data collection. We also acknowledge the support and encouragement from Dr. Bhoj Kumar Acharya, Dr. Sunita Pradhan, Dr. Basundhara Chettri, Dr. VJ Jins, Rohit George, and Thangsuanlian Naulak, who helped in making this work successful at various stages of the study. We are grateful for the cooperation and help received from the members of Panchayat (Village Council), Gaon Samaj (Village Committee), other local institutions, and community members of all 31 villages studied.
Funding
This paper is an outcome of the project funded by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, through G B Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment and Sustainable Development, Uttarakhand under the National Mission on Himalayan Studies [grant number: NMHS-2017/MG-01/477]. However, the funding agency had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Aditya Pradhan: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing—original draft and revision.
Sarala Khaling: funding acquisition, supervision, project administration, conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Chandni Singh
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Pradhan, A., Khaling, S. Community priorities, values, and perceptions associated with ecosystem services provided by the socio-ecological landscapes of Darjeeling-Sikkim Himalaya. Reg Environ Change 23, 36 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02028-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02028-z