Assessments of ecosystem service indicators and stakeholder's willingness to pay for selected ecosystem services in the Chure region of Nepal

Applied Geography

Volumn 69, Issue , 2016, Pages 25-34

  Bhandari, Pratima ^a   KC, Mohan ^b   Shrestha, Sujata ^c   Aryal, Achyut ^d   Shrestha, Uttam Babu ^e  

^a TRIBHUVAN UNIVERSITY   (Nepal)

^b Department of Forest   (Nepal)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^d MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^e UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

Ecosystem services; Himalaya; Nepal; Payment for ecosystem service; Watershed

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; LAND USE PLANNING; SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS; WATERSHED; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

HIMALAYAS; NEPAL;

EID: 84959378426     PISSN: 01436228     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.02.003     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Ananda J., Herath G. A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(10):2535-2548.
2. Arriagada R.A., Ferraro P.J., Sills E.O., Pattanayak S.K., Cordero-Sancho S. Do payments for environmental services affect forest cover? A farm-level evaluation from Costa Rica. Land Economics 2012, 88(2):382-399.
3. Barkmann J., Baumann R., Meyer U., Müller F., Windhorst W. Ökologische Integrität: Risikovorsorge im Nachhaltigen Landschaftsmanagement. Gaia 2001, 10(2):97-108.
4. Birch J.C., Thapa I., Balmford A., Bradbury R.B., Brown C., Butchart S.H., et al. What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 2014, 8:118-127.
5. Burkhard B., Kroll F., Müller F., Windhorst W. Landscapes' capacities to provide ecosystem services-a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 2009, 15(1):22.
6. Burkhard B., Kroll F., Nedkov S., Müller F. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators 2012, 21:17-29.
7. Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) National population and housing census 2011 (Village development committee/municipality), surkhet 2014, Government of Nepal, National Planning Commission Secretariat, Kathmandu, Nepal.
8. Charnley S., Poe M.R. Community forestry in theory and practice: where are we now?. Annual Review of Anthropology 2007, 36(1):301-336.
9. Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi biodiversity targets 2010, Available, Accessed 15.04.15. http://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/.
10. Corbera E., Soberanis C.G., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(3):743-761.
11. Daily G. Nature's services: Societal dependence on natural ecosystems 1997, Island Press.
12. Department of Forest (DoF) Community forest users group database, management information system 2015, Community Forestry Division, Department of Forest, Kathmandu, Nepal.
13. Dyson M., Bergkamp G., Scanlon J. Flow: The essentials of environmental flows 2003, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
14. Ferraro P.J., Kiss A. Direct payments to conserve biodiversity. Science 2002, 298(5599):1718-1719.
15. Fisher B., Turner R.K. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation. Biological Conservation 2008, 141(5):1167-1169.
16. Jacobs S., Burkhard B., Van Daele T., Staes J., Schneiders A. 'The matrix reloaded': a review of expert knowledge use for mapping ecosystem services. Ecological Modelling 2015, 295:21-30.
17. Khatri D.B., Paudel N.S., Bista R., Bhandari K. REDD+ financing: What can we learn from the piloting of forest carbon trust fund in Nepal? 2013, Discussion Paper Series 12.1, Forest Action Nepal, Kathmandu.
18. Kinzig A.P., Perrings C., Chapin F.S., Polasky S., Smith V.K., Tilman D., et al. Paying for ecosystem services-promise and peril. Science 2011, 334(6056):603-604.
19. Koschke L., Fuerst C., Frank S., Makeschin F. A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecological Indicators 2012, 21:54-66.
20. Kroll F., Müller F., Haase D., Fohrer N. Rural-urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 2012, 29(3):521-535.
21. Lankia T., Neuvonen M., Pouta E., Sievänen T. Willingness to contribute to the management of recreational quality on private lands in Finland. Journal of Forest Economics 2014, 20(2):141-160.
22. Loomis J., Brown T., Lucero B., Peterson G. Improving validity experiments of contingent valuation methods: results of efforts to reduce and disparity of hypothetical and actual willingness to pay. Land Economics 1996, 72(4):450-461.
23. Lopa D., Mwanyoka I., Jambiya G., Massoud T., Harrison P., Ellis-Jones M., et al. Towards operational payments for water ecosystem services in Tanzania: a case study from the Uluguru Mountains. Oryx 2012, 46(01):34-44.
24. Milder J.C., Scherr S.J., Bracer C. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 2010, 15(2):4.
25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis 2005, Island Press.
26. Mitchell R.C., Carson R.T. Using surveys to value public goods: The contingent valuation method 2013, Routledge.
27. Molnar K., Scherr S.J., Khare A. Who conserves the world's forests? Community-driven strategies to protect forests and respect rights 2004, Forest Trends and Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington, D.C., USA, [online] URL. http://www.rightsandresources.org/documents/files/doc_136.pdf.
28. Müller F. Indicating ecosystem and landscape organisation. Ecological Indicators 2005, 5(4):280-294.
29. Muñoz-Piña C., Guevara A., Torres J.M., Braña J. Paying for the hydrological services of Mexico's forests: analysis, negotiations and results. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):725-736.
30. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics 2010, 69(6):1202-1208.
31. Nelson E., Mendoza G., Regetz J., Polasky S., Tallis H., Cameron D., et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2009, 7(1):4-11.
32. Oort B., Bhatta L.D., Baral H., Rai R.K., Dhakal M., Rucevska I., et al. Assessing community values to support mapping of ecosystem services in the Koshi river basin, Nepal. Ecosystem Services 2014, 13:70-80.
33. Pandey S.S., Cockfield G., Maraseni T.N. Assessing the roles of community forestry in climate change mitigation and adaptation: a case study from Nepal. Forest Ecology and Management 2016, 360:400-407. 10.1016/j.foreco.2015.09.040.
34. Pattanayak S.K., Wunder S., Ferraro P.J. Show me the money: do payments supply environmental services in developing countries?. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2010, 4(2):254-274.
35. Paudyal K., Baral H., Burkhard B., Bhandari S.P., Keenan R.J. Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal. Ecosystem Services 2015, 13:81-92. 10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.01.007.
36. Perrings C., Duraiappah A., Larigauderie A., Mooney H. The biodiversity and ecosystem services science-policy interface. Science 2011, 331(6021):1139-1140.
37. Peterson M.J., Hall D.M., Feldpausch-Parker A.M., Peterson T.R. Obscuring ecosystem function with application of the ecosystem services concept. Conservation Biology 2010, 24(1):113-119.
38. Quintero M., Wunder S., Estrada R. For services rendered? Modelling hydrology and livelihoods in Andean payments for environmental services schemes. Forest Ecology and Management 2009, 258(9):1871-1880.
39. Redford K.H., Adams W.M. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conservation Biology 2009, 23(4):785-787.
40. Regmi B.R., Kafle G., Adhikari A., Subedi A., Suwal R., Paudel I. Towards an innovative approach to integrated wetland management in Rupa Lake Area of Nepal. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning 2009, 2(4):80-85.
41. Rio García-Amado L., Pérez M.R., García S.B. Motivation for conservation: assessing integrated conservation and development projects and payments for environmental services in La Sepultura Biosphere Reserve, Chiapas, Mexico. Ecological Economics 2013, 89:92-100.
42. Sanchez-Azofeifa G.A., Pfaff A., Robalino J.A., Boomhower J.P. Costa Rica's payment for environmental services program: intention, implementation and impact. Conservation Biology 2006, 21(5):1165-1173.
43. Schomers S., Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 2013, 6:16-30.
44. Seppelt R., Dormann C.F., Eppink F.V., Lautenbach S., Schmidt S. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology 2011, 48(3):630-636.
45. Shrestha U.B., Bawa K.S. Economic contribution of Chinese caterpillar fungus to the livelihoods of mountain communities in Nepal. Biological Conservation 2014, 177:194-202.
46. Shrestha U.B., Shrestha B.B., Shrestha S. Biodiversity conservation in community forests of Nepal: rhetoric and reality. International Journal of Biodiversity and Conservation 2010, 2(5):98-104.
47. Simelton E., Dam B.V. Farmers in NE Vietnam rank values of ecosystems from seven land uses. Ecosystem Services 2014, 9:133-138.
48. Sohel M.S.I., Mukul S.A., Burkhard B. Landscape[U+05F3] s capacities to supply ecosystem services in Bangladesh: a mapping assessment for Lawachara National Park. Ecosystem Services 2014, 12:128-135.
49. Stoll S., Frenzel M., Burkhard B., Adamescu M., Augustaitis A., Baeßler C., et al. Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network. Ecological Modelling 2015, 295:75-87.
50. TEEB The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB 2010.
51. Turner R., Daily G. The ecosystem services framework and natural capital conservation. Environmental and Resource Economics 2008, 39:25-35.
52. Turpie J.K., Marais C., Blignaut J.N. The working for water programme: evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 2008, 65(4):788-798.
53. Van Hecken G., Bastiaensen J., Vásquez W.F. The viability of local payments for watershed services: empirical evidence from Matiguás, Nicaragua. Ecological Economics 2012, 74:169-176.
54. Vásquez W.F. Willingness to pay and willingness to work for improvements of municipal and community-managed water services. Water Resources Research 2014, 50(10):8002-8014.
55. White A., Martin A. Who owns the world's forests? Forest tenure and public forests in transition 2002, Forest Trends, Center for International Environmental Law, Washington, D.C.
56. William J.V., Russell C.S., Rodriguez D.J., Darling A.H. Willingness to pay: Referendum contingent valuation and uncertain project benefits. Sustainable development Department Technical papers series; ENV-130 1999, 9-11. Publications, Environment Division, Inter-American Development Bank, 1300 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C, 20577.
57. Wunder S. Payment for ecosystem services: Some nuts and bolts 2005, CIFOR Occasional Paper, 42.