Spatial characterization of non-material values across multiple coastal production landscapes in the Indian Sundarban delta

Abstract

The paper narrates an empirical study of participatory mapping and spatial characterization of six non-material landscape values across multiple coastal production landscapes in the Indian Sundarban delta. The methodology relies on an inexpensive rapid rural appraisal technique that integrates the conventional notion of place preference and participatory mapping. 168 respondents living in the study area were provided six georeferenced maps with 30 pre-identified landmarks, and were asked to mark and rank at least three preferred locations (with no upper limit) for each of the six non-material landscape values category (i.e. spiritual, recreational, heritage, aesthetic, educational, and negative values). A total of 65 locations, depicting all the six landscape values, were identified from the survey. Corresponding scores against these points were calculated by multiplying the frequency of occurrence and assigned preference weights. We thereafter conducted a series of statistical and spatial analysis to understand the demographic patterns in the observed intangible values and their spatial association with different production landscapes. Regression modeling revealed significant influence of the age and educational profile of the respondents on the number of points marked viz.-a-viz. appreciation for non-material landscape values. Also, the Spearman correlation revealed a strong positive pairwise association between recreational and aesthetic values, spiritual and heritage as well as educational and heritage values. Finally, we computed landscape-wise availability of non-material values using a recent land use map of the delta, and found that agriculture/cultivated areas, rural settlements, and mudflats/beaches were associated with high non-material values, while aquaculture was minimally attributed to non-material landscape values. As such, the study facilitates a comparative understanding of non-material benefits from multiple rural production landscapes/waterscapes, besides providing valuable spatial information for policy-planners and administrative officials.

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

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Community Development Block (CDB) is the lowest administrative unit, which consists several village self-governance units, known as Panchayat.

  2. 2.

    The original classification of 13 types of values made by Brown and Reed (2000) include aesthetic value, economic value, recreation value, life sustaining value, learning value, biological diversity value, spiritual value, intrinsic value, historic value, future value, subsistence value, therapeutic value, and cultural value.

  3. 3.

    Panchayats are elected, rural self-governing institutions.

  4. 4.

    Here junior high school means upto 10th standard, locally known as Madhyamik schools.

References

  1. Alessa L, Kliskey A, Brown G (2008) Social-ecological hotspots mapping: a spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landsc. Urban Plan. 85(1):27–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.09.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Basu M, Hoshino S, Hashimoto S, Dasgupta R (2017) Determinants of water consumption: a cross- sectional household study in drought-prone rural India. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.06.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beichler SA (2015) Exploring the link between supply and demand of cultural ecosystem services—towards an integrated vulnerability assessment. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 11(3):250–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2015.1059891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bieling C, Plieninger T, Pirker H, Vogl CR (2014) Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecol Econ 105:19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Brown G (2005) Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: methods and applications. Soc Nat Resour 18(1):17–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920590881853

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown G, Brabyn L (2012) An analysis of the relationships between multiple values and physical landscapes at a regional scale using public participation GIS and landscape character classification. Landsc. Urban Plan. 107(3):317–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst. Serv. 13:119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brown G, Raymond C (2007) The relationship between place attachment and landscape values: toward mapping place attachment. Appl Geogr 27:89–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2006.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown G, Reed P (2000) Typology for use in national forest planning. For Sci 46(2):240–247

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown G, Weber D (2012) Measuring change in place values using public participation GIS (PPGIS). Appl Geogr 34:316–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.12.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Brown G, Raymond CM, Corcoran J (2015) Mapping and measuring place attachment. Appl Geogr 57:42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chan KMA, Satter T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chowdhury A, Maiti SK, Bhattacharyya S (2016) How to communicate climate change ‘impact and solutions’ to vulnerable population of Indian Sundarbans? From theory to practice. SpringerPlus. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2816-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Das CS (2012) Tiger straying incidents in Indian Sundarban : statistical analysis of case studies as well as depredation caused by conflict. Eur J Wildl Res 58(1):205–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0565-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. DasGupta R, Shaw R (2013) Changing perspectives of mangrove management in India—an analytical overview. Ocean Coast Manag. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2013.04.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. DasGupta R, Shaw R (2015) An indicator based approach to assess coastal communities’ resilience against climate related disasters in Indian Sundarbans. J Coast Conserv 24(3):85–101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11852-014-0369-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. DasGupta R, Shaw R (2017) Perceptive insight into incentive design and sustainability of participatory mangrove management: a case study from the Indian Sundarbans. J For Res 28(4):815–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-016-0355-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. DasGupta S, Mondal K, Basu K, Dasgupta S, Mondal K, Basu K (2017) Dissemination of cultural heritage and impact of pilgrim tourism at Gangasagar Island. Anthropologist 0073:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2006.11890928

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. DasGupta R, Hashimoto S, Gundimeda H (2019a) Biodiversity/ecosystem services scenario exercises from the Asia–Pacific: typology, archetypes and implications for sustainable development goals (SDGs). Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0647-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. DasGupta R, Hashimoto S, Okuro T, Basu M (2019b) Scenario-based land change modelling in the Indian Sundarban delta: an exploratory analysis of plausible alternative regional futures. Sustain Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0642-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DasGupta R, Shaw R, Basu M (2019c) Chapter 12—implication and management of coastal salinity for sustainable community livelihood: case study from the Indian Sundarban delta. This chapter is derived from first author’s doctoral dissertation, archived in the Kyoto University library as Da. In: Krishnamurthy RR, Jonathan MP, Srinivasalu S, Glaeser B (eds), Coastal management, pp 251–269. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-810473-6.00013-3

  22. Díaz S, Demissew S, Carabias J, Joly C, Lonsdale M, Ash N, Larigauderie A, Adhikari JR, Arico S, Báldi A, Bartuska A (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KM, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359(6373):270–272. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Ind 18:421–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Garcia-Martin M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Gounaridis D, Kizos T, Printsmann A, Müller M, Lieskovský J, Plieninger T (2017) Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landsc Ecol 32(11):2133–2150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0531-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gulinck H, Múgica M, De Lucio JV, Atauri JA (2001) A framework for comparative landscape analysis and evaluation based on land cover data, with an application in the Madrid region (Spain). Landsc Urban Plan 55(4):257–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00159-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hashimoto S, Nakamura S, Saito O, Kohsaka R, Kamiyama C, Tomiyoshi M, Kishioka T (2015) Mapping and characterizing ecosystem services of social–ecological production landscapes: case study of Noto, Japan. Sustain Sci 10(2):257–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0285-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Havas J, Saito O, Hanaki K, Tanaka T (2016) Perceived landscape values in the Ogasawara Islands. Ecosyst Serv 18:130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hernández-Morcillo M, Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) An empirical review of cultural ecosystem service indicators. Ecol Ind 29:434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Johnson C, Dodman D, Brown D, Francis K, Hardoy J, Satterthwaite D (2013) Understanding the nature and scale of urban risk in low- and middle-income countries and its implications for humanitarian preparedness , planning and response. Human settlements discussion paper series climate change and cities 4.

  31. Jorgensen BS, Stedman RC (2006) A comparative analysis of predictors of sense of place dimensions: attachment to, dependence on, and identification with lakeshore properties. J Environ Manag 79:316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Karimi A, Brown G, Hockings M (2015) Methods and participatory approaches for identifying social-ecological hotspots. Appl Geogr 63:9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Klain SC, Chan KMA (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lee E (2018) Protected areas, country and value: the nature—culture tyranny of the IUCN’s protected area guidelines for indigenous Australians. Antipode. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lindsey PA, Petracca LS, Funston PJ, Bauer H, Dickman A, Everatt K, Flyman M, Henschel P, Hinks AE, Kasiki S, Loveridge A (2017) The performance of African protected areas for lions and their prey. ORYX 51(1):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2017.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mistri A, Das B (2020) Occupational issues in Sundarban. In: Environmental change, livelihood issues and migration. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-8735-7_3

  37. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Díaz S, Pataki G, Roth E, Stenseke M, Watson RT, Dessane EB, Islar M, Kelemen E, Maris V (2017) Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:7–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 68(5):1301–1315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.12.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ridding LE, Redhead JW, Oliver TH, Schmucki R, McGinlay J, Graves AR, Morris J, Bradbury RB, King H, Bullock JM (2018) The importance of landscape characteristics for the delivery of cultural ecosystem services. J Environ Manag 206:1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.11.066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Rollero C, de Piccoli N (2010) Place attachment, identification and environment perception: an empirical study. J Environ Psychol 30(2):198–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2009.12.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ruiz-Frau A, Edwards-Jones G, Kaiser MJ (2011) Mapping stakeholder values for coastal zone management. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 434(1987):239–249. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps09136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Schama S et al. (1995) Landscape and memory.

  44. Small N, Munday M, Durance I (2017) The challenge of valuing ecosystem services that have no material benefits. Glob Environ Change 44:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Tyrväinen L, Mäkinen K, Schipperijn J (2007) Tools for mapping social values of urban woodlands and other green areas. Landsc Urban Plan 79(1):5–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Wu J (2010) Landscape of culture and culture of landscape: Does landscape ecology need culture? Landsc Ecol 25(8):1147–1150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-010-9524-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zube EH (1987) Perceived land use patterns and landscape values. Landsc Ecol 1(1):37–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 16F16106 and the Strategic Research and Development Area (JPMEERF16S11510) project financed by the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan (ERCA). The authors, in addition, would like to extend their sincerest thanks to the local administrative officials for extending logistic support during the field survey.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajarshi Dasgupta.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Handled by Moinul Islam, Kyushu University, Japan.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 972 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dasgupta, R., Hashimoto, S., Basu, M. et al. Spatial characterization of non-material values across multiple coastal production landscapes in the Indian Sundarban delta. Sustain Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00899-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • UNESCO world heritage
  • Mangroves
  • Hot-spot analysis
  • Nature’s contribution to people (NCP)
  • PPGIS