Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making ecosystem services approach operational: Experiences from Dhauladhar Range, Western Himalaya

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Payment for ecosystem services (PES) has emerged as a promising tool to participatory natural resource management and sharing of benefits among the stakeholders. However, very few successful models of PES are available for replication. This study deals with an analysis of a PES model currently operational in the Dhauladhar Range, Western Himalaya, where upstream villagers are paid for maintaining the spring-shed that supplies drinking water to the downstream township. To understand the flow of various ecosystem services (ES), institutional mechanism, and governance, we conducted an in-depth analysis of this project. The study identified lack of monitoring and weak governance as factors affecting smooth operation of PES. To revamp the PES model more effectively at the present and new sites in future stakeholder integration, valuation of ES and inputs in terms of capacity building of primary and secondary stakeholders would be critical.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, W.M. 2014. The value of valuing nature. Science 346: 549–551.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, C., S. Tiwari, M. Borgyory, A. Acharaya, and E. Morrison. 2007. Fair deals for watershed services in India. Natural Resources Issues No. 10. London: International Institute for Environment and Development.

  • Anonymous. 2013. Policy on Payment for ecosystem services (PES) in Himachal Pradesh. Reference No. FFE-B-C (15)-3/2005-II. Shimla: Government of Himachal Pradesh, Forest Department. https://hpforest.nic.in. Accessed 03 Feb 2020.

  • Asquith, N.M., M.T. Vargas, and S. Wunder. 2008. Selling two environmental services: In-kind payments for bird habitat and watershed protection in Los Negros, Bolivia. Ecological Economics 65: 675–684.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banyal, R.S. 2010. Revised Working Plan (2010–11 to 2024–25), Vol. I. Palampur Forest Department.

  • Berke, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownson, K., E. Guinessey, M. Carranza, M. Esquivel, H. Hesselbach, L.M. Ramirez, and L. Villa. 2019. Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes. Ecosystem Services. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaudhary, S., N. Chettri, K. Uddin, T.B. Khatri, M. Dhakal, B. Bajracharya, et al. 2016. Implications of land cover change on ecosystem services and people’s dependency. A case study from the Koshi Tappu Wildlife Reserve, Nepal. Ecological Complexity 28: 200–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., R. d’Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, et al. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., R. de Groot, L. Braat, I. Kubiszewski, L. Fioramonti., P. Sutton, S. Farber, and M. Grasso, 2017. Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services 28: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Damastuti, E., and Rudolf de Groot. 2019. Participatory ecosystem service mapping to enhance community-based mangrove rehabilitation and management in Demak, Indonesia. Regional Environmental Change 19: 65–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, K., K. Fisher, M. Dickson, S.F. Thrush, and R. LeHeron. 2015. Improving ecosystem service frameworks to address wicked problems. Ecology and Society 20: 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot, R.S. 1992. Functions of nature: Evaluation of nature in environmental planning management and decision making. Groningen: Wolters-Noordhoff.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14: 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felipe-Lucia, M.R., B. Martín-López, S. Lavorel, L. Berraquero-Díaz, J. Escalera-Reyes, and F.A. Comín. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE 10: e0132232. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, B., and R.K. Turner. 2008. Ecosystem Services: Classification for valuation. Biological Conservation 141: 1167–1169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrick, D.E., J.W. Hall, A. Dobson, R. Damania, R.Q. Grafton, R. Hope, C. Hepburn, R. Bark, et al. 2017. Valuing water for sustainable development. Measurement and governance must advance together. Science 358: 1003–1005.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • GIZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit). 2011. Palampur Water Governance Initiative: Application of payment for ensuring drinking water security in Palampur Town, Himachal Pradesh, India: Process and results. Shimla: GIZ Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grima, N., S. Singh, B. Smetschka, and L. Ringhofer. 2016. Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) in Latin America: Analysing the performance of 40 case studies. Ecosystem Services 17: 24–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young, R., and M.B. Potschin. 2011. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): 2011 Update. European Environment Agency. In Paper prepared for discussion at the Expert Meeting on ecosystem accounts organized by the UNSD, the EEA and the World Bank, London.

  • Heidi, R., H.J. Huber-Stearns, A. Goldstein, S. Cheng, and T.P. Toombs. 2015. Institutional analysis of payments for watershed services in the western United States. Ecosystem Services 16: 83–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hejnowicz, A.P., D.G. Raffaelli, A. Murray, R. Piran, and C.L. White. 2014. Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset frame work. Ecosystem Services 9: 83–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, A.K., and P.K. Joshi. 2019. Forest ecosystem services in the Central Himalaya: Local benefits and global relevance. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences 89: 785–792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, A., G. Bradley, R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan. 1999. Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45: 62–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovacs, E.K., C. Kumar, C. Agarwal, W.M. Adams, R.A. Hope, and B. Vira. 2016. The politics of negotiation and implementation: A reciprocal water access agreement in the Himalayan Foothills, India. Ecology and Society 21: 37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubiszewski, I., R. Costanza, L. Dorji, P. Thoennes, and K. Tshering. 2013. An initial estimate of the value of ecosystem services in Bhutan. Ecosystem Services 3: e11–e21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., M. Kumar, and L. Garrett. 2014. Behavioural foundation of response policies for ecosystem management: What can we learn from Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Ecosystem Services 10: 128–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Notee, A., D. D’Amato, H. Makinen, M.L. Paracchini, C. Liquete, B. Egoh, D. Geneletti, and N.D. Crossman. 2017. Ecosystem Services Classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework. Ecological Indicators 74: 392–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lautenbach, S., A. Mupepele, C. Dormann, H. Lee, S. Schmidt, S. Scholte, R. Seppelt, A. Teeffelen, et al. 2019. Blind spots in ecosystem services research and challenges for implementation. Regional Environmental Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1457-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, G.J. 1995. Ethnobotany: A methods manual. London: WWF International UNESCO, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Chapman and Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Ortega, J., O. Elena, and C. Roux. 2013. Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Latin America: A literature review and conceptual model. Ecosystem Services 6: 122–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meff, G.K., L.A. Nielsen, R.L. Knight, and D.A. Schenborn. 2002. Ecosystem management. Adaptive, community-based conservation. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, D., W. Booth, P. Alix, A. Apitz, S.E. Forrow, D. Huber-Sannwald, and N. Jayasundara. 2017. Application of ecosystem services in natural resource management decision making. Integrated Environment Assessment and Management 13: 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mukul, S.A., J. Herbohn, and J. Firn. 2016. Co-benefits of biodiversity and carbon sequestration from regenerating secondary forests in the Philippine uplands: Implications for forest landscape restoration. Biotropica 48: 882–889.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muradian, R., and L. Rival. 2012. Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 1: 93–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo, R., A. Balmford, R. Costanza, B. Fisher, R.E. Green, B. Lehner, T.R. Malcolm, and T.H. Ricketts. 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105: 9495–9500.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pandeya, B., W. Buytaerta, Z. Zulkaflib, T. Karpouzogloud, F. Maoe, and D.M. Hannahe. 2016. A comparative analysis of ecosystem services valuation approaches for application at the local scale and in data scarce regions. Ecosystem Services 22: 250–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paudyal, K., H. Baral, B. Burkhard, S.P. Bhandari, and R.J. Keenan. 2015. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosystem Services 13: 81–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peh, K.S.-H., I. Thapa, M. Basnyat, A. Balmford, G.P. Bhattarai, R.B. Bradbury, C. Brown, H.M. Stuart, et al. 2016. Synergies between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service provision: Lessons on integrated ecosystem service valuation from a Himalayan Protected Area, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 22: 359–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pejchar, L., and H.A. Mooney. 2009. Invasive species, ecosystem services and human well being. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24: 497–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pham, T.T., L. Loft, K. Bennett, V.T. Phuong, L.N. Dung, and J. Brunner. 2015. Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality. Ecosystem Services 16: 220–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potschin, M., and R. Haines-Young. 2016a. Conceptual frameworks and the cascade model. In OpenNESS Ecosystem Services reference book, M. Potschin, and K. Jax, eds. EC FP7 Grant Agreement No. 308428.

  • Potschin, M., and R. Haines-Young. 2016b. Frameworks for ecosystem assessments. In Routledge handbook of ecosystem services, ed. M. Potschin, R. HainesYoung, R. Fish, and R.K. Turner. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Probst, K., and J. Hagmann. 2003. Understanding participatory research in the context of natural resource management—Paradigms, approaches and typologies. ODI-AGREN Network Paper No. 130. https://www.odi.org.uk/agren/. Accessed 03 Feb 2020.

  • Rasul, G., N. Chettri, and E. Sharma. 2011. Framework for valuing ecosystem services in the Himalayas. Lalitpur: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development ICIMOD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawlins, M.A., and L. Westby. 2013. Community participation in payment for ecosystem services design and implementation: An example from Trinidad. Ecosystem Services 6: 117–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S.P. 2007. Himalayan forest ecosystem services Incorporating in national accounting. Washington, DC: CHEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Talley, J.L., J. Schneider, and E. Lindquist. 2016. A simplified approach to stakeholder engagement in natural resource management: The Five-Feature Framework. Ecology and Society 21: 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, H., P. Kareiva, M. Marvier, and A. Chang. 2008. An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proceedings National Academy of Sciences of USA 105: 9457–9464.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB. 2008. The Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: An Interim report. https://www.teebweb.org. Accessed 03 Feb 2020.

  • Torres, A.B., D.C. Mac Millan, M. Skutsch, and J.C. Lovett. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services and rural development: Landowners’ preferences and potential participation in Western Mexico. Ecosystem Services 6: 72–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uniyal, A., and G.S. Rawat. 2018. Energy–Food–Water; the fundamental provisioning services from the Himalayan forests: A case study from Dhauladhar Mountain Range, Northwest Himalaya. Indian Journal of Forestry 41: 17–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waite, R., B. Kushner, M. Jungwiwattanaporn, E. Graym, and L. Burke. 2015. Use of coastal economic valuation in decision-making in the Caribbean: Enabling conditions and lessons learned. Ecosystem Services 11: 45–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, J.E.M., E. Tom, O. Venter, B. Williams, A. Tulloch, C. Stewart, I. Thompson, J.C. Ray, et al. 2018. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology and Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x. Accessed 03 Feb 2020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuliani, L. 2003. Lessons learnt from managing adaptive collaborative management and research with specific reference to a project in Indonesia. ACM Project Internal Report. Bogor: CIFOR.

  • Zahvoyska, L., and T. Bas. 2013. Stakeholders’ perceptions of mountain forest ecosystem services: The Ukrainian Carpathians case study. In The Carpathians: Integrating Nature and society towards sustainability, environmental science and engineering, J. Kozak, et al., eds., 352–367. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12725-0_25.

Download references

Acknowledgements

AU would like to thank Director WII and Nodal Officer NMHS for encouragements and facilities. Forest Department (H.P.) and Palampur Municipal Council are thanked for their cooperation. Researchers at WII and CSIR-IHBT are thanked for their help in various ways. Mr. Daghuram and Ms. Rani from village Bohal are thanked for their assistance in the field. Above all, we thank the villagers for sharing information and their views. The authors would like to thank the Editors and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments that helped in improving the manuscript. We would like to thank Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (India) for funding the study through National Mission on Himalayan Studies being implemented by the GBPNIHE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Habitat Ecology, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, P.O. Box 18, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India

    Anjali Uniyal

  2. High Altitude Biology Division, CSIR-Institute of Himalayan Bioresource Technology, Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, 176061, India

    Sanjay Kr. Uniyal

  3. Faculty of Wildlife Sciences, Wildlife Institute of India, Chandrabani, P.O. Box 18, Dehra Dun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India

    Gopal S. Rawat

Authors
  1. Anjali Uniyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanjay Kr. Uniyal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gopal S. Rawat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anjali Uniyal.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 968 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Uniyal, A., Uniyal, S.K. & Rawat, G.S. Making ecosystem services approach operational: Experiences from Dhauladhar Range, Western Himalaya. Ambio 49, 2003–2014 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01332-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01332-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation